Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Mechanics => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on September 10, 2022, 12:55:05 PM
-
Thread for discussion of changes announced for v2.2.0. Please do not post bug reports or unrelated suggestions in this thread.
-
So what does a supernovaed system look like? I know all the JPs would be destroyed so it would be inaccessible by normal means but I wonder what the actual system view would look like. I'm also wondering what certain spoilers would do if they spawned there at a later point. I'm thinking invader aether rift
-
Was hoping for some mechanic to clear radiation, perhaps terraforming or construction based, but new formula is fine too.
-
So what does a supernovaed system look like? I know all the JPs would be destroyed so it would be inaccessible by normal means but I wonder what the actual system view would look like. I'm also wondering what certain spoilers would do if they spawned there at a later point. I'm thinking invader aether rift
Everything is gone except the primary star - nothing else remains, including jump points. Its a good point though about invaders or raiders turning up post-supernova. I'll add code to make sure that doesn't happen.
-
Was hoping for some mechanic to clear radiation, perhaps terraforming or construction based, but new formula is fine too.
Won't be terraforming, but I am looking at other options.
-
What things give damage control rating besides damage control components? (Re: new instant damage control)
I noticed that in 2.0.3 (which I am still playing for the moment), DCR is listed, but even ships without a damage control component or even main engineering have DCR.
-
What things give damage control rating besides damage control components? (Re: new instant damage control)
I noticed that in 2.0.3 (which I am still playing for the moment), DCR is listed, but even ships without a damage control component or even main engineering have DCR.
Engineering components have a DCR rating of 1.
-
Love the change to DCR! The normal DCR rating has always felt useless because combat happens so much quicker than repairs ever do - except in multi-faction games when reduced size launchers mean you have chances to repair in between missile waves, sometimes. Now with an instant repair possibility it feels like DCR will have the importance it should. The tonnage-dependent Instant-DCR calculation method also helps make DCR not so trivial to slap onto your giant capital ships, which is a good bit of foresight and keeps the higher techs relevant for
Warhammer Aurora players who like big ships.
-
Supernovae I don't think should completely destroy the system as a whole. All bodies and ships should for sure be wiped out, however the star should collapse into a neutron star or blackhole, with all the old jump points deleted but the possibility to resurvey it with all new jump points. I think this would be more interesting having a massive rerouting of the galaxy over just poking a hole in our jump network
-
I definitely agree that rather than just turning the system into a void it should have its jump points regenerated by the cataclysm.
-
Thirded on the idea that generating a new set of JPs might be interesting.
-
Thirded on the idea that generating a new set of JPs might be interesting.
Even if a new set of jump points is generated, you would still have to find a link to them from the outside, which is unlikely. Besides, if the new supernova system is in an important area of your Empire, then the loss of jump points will be very low down on your list of problems :)
-
Thirded on the idea that generating a new set of JPs might be interesting.
Even if a new set of jump points is generated, you would still have to find a link to them from the outside, which is unlikely. Besides, if the new supernova system is in an important area of your Empire, then the loss of jump points will be very low down on your list of problems :)
TBF the whole supernova thing is supposed to be unlikely to begin with, I think it'd be very cool if supernovae somehow created loads of TN elements that could perhaps be found around the ruins of the system. Provided you find your way back.
-
"there is no restriction on which stars may be chosen by the Spacemaster"
So you can blow up even already explored systems?
I can see this is gonna be useful for players who are desperately fed up with a particular alien race.
Thirded on the idea that generating a new set of JPs might be interesting.
Even if a new set of jump points is generated, you would still have to find a link to them from the outside, which is unlikely. Besides, if the new supernova system is in an important area of your Empire, then the loss of jump points will be very low down on your list of problems :)
I guess the jump points could maybe be re-discovered by a gravitational re-survey of the nearby systems.
It's fine by me either way though.
-
"there is no restriction on which stars may be chosen by the Spacemaster"
So you can blow up even already explored systems?
I can see this is gonna be useful for players who are desperately fed up with a particular alien race.
The guy who made the Reddit thread about gassing an alien race with terraformers is salivating right now.
-
So you basically want to erase a set of systems.
Are you going to add more systems to the map to compensate for the missing systems or just let the map shrink?
Just thinking if it is an AI antagonist and the game went on long enough the map could end up disappearing, game over!
-
Now that I think about it, I like the idea of designing a huge ship, giving it a big misc component named "supernova bomb", then making it fly straight to the sun of a system and triggering the SM supernova once it reaches it.
-
Now that I think about it, I like the idea of designing a huge ship, giving it a big misc component named "supernova bomb", then making it fly straight to the sun of a system and triggering the SM supernova once it reaches it.
Supernova, yeah, supernova
Supernova goes pop
Supernova, you think it's over, but
The supernova don't stop
[Citation Needed] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVgXST6w6gM)
-
Now that I think about it, I like the idea of designing a huge ship, giving it a big misc component named "supernova bomb", then making it fly straight to the sun of a system and triggering the SM supernova once it reaches it.
I prefer the term Star Trigger
-
So you basically want to erase a set of systems.
Are you going to add more systems to the map to compensate for the missing systems or just let the map shrink?
Just thinking if it is an AI antagonist and the game went on long enough the map could end up disappearing, game over!
Only one system is erased. The rest will just be a little warm for a few decades.
-
New change to GU templates looks interesting. For people who don't like researching individual units and especially the HQ units this is probably perfect.
One change I might request is that in this step:
If the racial armour modifier or weapon modifier has been changed since the creation of any class in the original template, a new Ground Unit Class will be generated for the matching element in the new template, based on an upgrade of the original class.
could we have the game first check if a class with the current racial armor and weapon modifier exists in the current unit series, and if so use that instead? This would apply even if the latest unit in the series is not just the same design with better stats, meaning that if I want to upgrade my formation from VEH-based tank to HVH-based tanks it is as simple as one button click. Overall this would make the system flexible for different playstyles.
This would allow people who prefer to have the R&D cost of developing their ground units to still benefit from the Copy+Update function, while the default remains the described behavior as I think most will prefer it. Alternatively, a pop-up window with a checkbox to select between these behaviors would be nice, but as this requires adding GUI elements I would not ask for that much extra work. ;)
-
I really like the new GU change as it makes the whole process of upgrading so much simpler. If we could have OOB templates as well that would make it much easier to make detailed ground forces at a large scale.
-
For v2.2, each of the above has a separate 'Start Time', which is set to the Game Time when the player has discovered the requisite number of systems.
Is the new Spoiler spawning mechanic aware of multiple player races at all? If not, I think it would make sense for the timer to start as soon as any player race discovers the required number of systems.
This hadn't occurred to me until I generated some new systems with my setup race and simultaneously triggered Raiders in every player race's home system on the same increment. On that note, if Raiders were just a little more random about how soon they show up after you trigger them, it would make encountering them a bit more interesting.
-
The copy and update button sounds like a phenomenal quality of life improvement, but it is a bit sad that it skips the research process. I've always liked the fact that we research individual components/units, since it's a feature that is pretty unique to Aurora, but it is just pretty cumbersome to connect it with the other systems of the game without requiring tons of extra mouse clicks from the player. I did make a suggestion thread recently about trying to reduce the amount of mouse clicks needed for research, but not sure how much that would help with this new feature in particular.
-
For v2.2, each of the above has a separate 'Start Time', which is set to the Game Time when the player has discovered the requisite number of systems.
Is the new Spoiler spawning mechanic aware of multiple player races at all? If not, I think it would make sense for the timer to start as soon as any player race discovers the required number of systems.
This hadn't occurred to me until I generated some new systems with my setup race and simultaneously triggered Raiders in every player race's home system on the same increment. On that note, if Raiders were just a little more random about how soon they show up after you trigger them, it would make encountering them a bit more interesting.
Player systems is the total number of distinct systems discovered by all player races in combination. So if two player races each discover five different systems, that is ten player systems.
-
ALL PRAISE GU QOL
EDIT: ALL PRAISE WEAPON ASSIGNMENT QOL
-
What if supernova was not the purpose of the weapon, just a side effect with a risk of occurring.
The weapon might be intended to open a hole in the corona to create a vast solar flare which can effectively roast a planet and sterilise it.
It might also or alternatively be a side effect of a machine like a partial dyson sphere which attempts to harness the power of a star to produce TN elements on demand and solve the resource problem once and for all... or not!
-
ALL PRAISE GU QOL
EDIT: ALL PRAISE WEAPON ASSIGNMENT QOL
QOL FOR THE QOL GOD!! UPDATES FOR THE UPDATE THRONE!!
-
v2.2 adds the Assign # checkbox, along with a numeric text-entry field next to the checkbox. If the Assign # checkbox is checked, then a number of weapons equal to the numeric field will be dragged, according to the following rules.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just allow multiple selection? It seems like it would be even easier for me to just control–click or shift–click the weapons I want and then drag them all together.
-
v2.2 adds the Assign # checkbox, along with a numeric text-entry field next to the checkbox. If the Assign # checkbox is checked, then a number of weapons equal to the numeric field will be dragged, according to the following rules.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just allow multiple selection? It seems like it would be even easier for me to just control–click or shift–click the weapons I want and then drag them all together.
Steve said on Discord that the tree view doesn't support multiple selections.
-
Ooooh these QoL improvements look awesome!
-
I absolutely love these GC changes, really fantastic QoL stuff, I have a big smile right now!
-
For v2.2, the output of all GFCC will be combined into a single construction rate, similar to the mechanics of industrial projects.
HALLELUJAH!!!!!!
-
Steve you are absolutely killing it with these awesome QOL changes.
-
Having GFCC work like factories is probably for the best, but one thing I liked about the fixed construction rate of GFCC was that it more or less acted as if the training process of the actual soldiers was something that happens at a fixed rate and that can't be accelerated by additional complexes, which made sense. Someone isn't gonna become a soldier/tank driver faster by having multiple schools.
My dream scenario would be if the soldier training process was split off to a separate building that had a fixed training rate, maybe functioning similar to how academies continuously produce crew for space ships. GFCC would then in spirit only produce the equipment and vehicles and, once they've finished constructing a formation, they would draw their soldiers from your soldier pool, similar to how constructed ships draw from the crew pool.
Actually, maybe this function could just be added to the existing academy building. Right now academies have a setting that let's us change the quantity vs quality of the produced personell, maybe they should in addition have a setting that let's us choose how much space crew vs how much ground soldiers they produce.
(For the question of what should happen if you don't have enough soldiers in your pool and build a formation, maybe the easiest would be to have the formation stuck at 100% in the construction screen until enough soldiers had accumulated for it to be completed. Instead of having a conscript modifier like with space ships.)
-
Having GFCC work like factories is probably for the best, but one thing I liked about the fixed construction rate of GFCC was that it more or less acted as if the training process of the actual soldiers was something that happens at a fixed rate and that can't be accelerated by additional complexes, which made sense. Someone isn't gonna become a soldier/tank driver faster by having multiple schools.
The issues that you could get around that quite easily by breaking a unit into several parts, building them all simultaneously and converting at the end. It just involved micromanagement.
-
Welp. Putting off my next game to 2.2 to take advantage of the great QoL changes for groundforces.
-
Having GFCC work like factories is probably for the best, but one thing I liked about the fixed construction rate of GFCC was that it more or less acted as if the training process of the actual soldiers was something that happens at a fixed rate and that can't be accelerated by additional complexes, which made sense. Someone isn't gonna become a soldier/tank driver faster by having multiple schools.
The issues that you could get around that quite easily by breaking a unit into several parts, building them all simultaneously and converting at the end. It just involved micromanagement.
Yeah, that's true, but still you probably had a reason why you originally set up GFCC to be different from factories, right? Was it because you considered the process of training soldiers or was it a different reason?
-
Having GFCC work like factories is probably for the best, but one thing I liked about the fixed construction rate of GFCC was that it more or less acted as if the training process of the actual soldiers was something that happens at a fixed rate and that can't be accelerated by additional complexes, which made sense. Someone isn't gonna become a soldier/tank driver faster by having multiple schools.
The issues that you could get around that quite easily by breaking a unit into several parts, building them all simultaneously and converting at the end. It just involved micromanagement.
Yeah, that's true, but still you probably had a reason why you originally set up GFCC to be different from factories, right? Was it because you considered the process of training soldiers or was it a different reason?
I had a shipyard-style operation in mind. However, the mechanics worked against anyone building larger formations, because it would be several years before they could use them. It doesn't really make logical sense that building a 2000 man regiment would take four times as long as simultaneously building four 500-man battalions. Now both options require the same time and same effort.
-
Throwing my hat in as well to say these changes are awesome Steve.
-
Having GFCC work like factories is probably for the best, but one thing I liked about the fixed construction rate of GFCC was that it more or less acted as if the training process of the actual soldiers was something that happens at a fixed rate and that can't be accelerated by additional complexes, which made sense. Someone isn't gonna become a soldier/tank driver faster by having multiple schools.
My dream scenario would be if the soldier training process was split off to a separate building that had a fixed training rate, maybe functioning similar to how academies continuously produce crew for space ships. GFCC would then in spirit only produce the equipment and vehicles and, once they've finished constructing a formation, they would draw their soldiers from your soldier pool, similar to how constructed ships draw from the crew pool.
Actually, maybe this function could just be added to the existing academy building. Right now academies have a setting that let's us change the quantity vs quality of the produced personell, maybe they should in addition have a setting that let's us choose how much space crew vs how much ground soldiers they produce.
(For the question of what should happen if you don't have enough soldiers in your pool and build a formation, maybe the easiest would be to have the formation stuck at 100% in the construction screen until enough soldiers had accumulated for it to be completed. Instead of having a conscript modifier like with space ships.)
I like your idea of having academies produce ground soldiers at a fixed rate with the quality vs quantity slider and a conscripted negative modifier for when you don't have enough trained prsnl for your GF units. After all many societies have rushed untrained troops to the front in crisis situations.
-
PRAISE THE ORGANIZATION TAB, ALL TREMBLE BEFORE YOUR GOD STEVE
-
Hot damn, it's finally here!
Now, if we could import & export units, formations, and organizations, the dream of creating fully accurate real world OOBs and using them in multiple games is possible!
-
Organization tab is an excellent addition. Loving the ground forces updates for 2.2!
I would like to reiterate my previous comment about having the formation update function use existing units in a Series if they were developed with the racial max attack and armor. Again, this would let the mechanic support players who prefer to research the ground units rather than have them gifted freely - personally I would use this for most units and then take the free HQs as the RP cost for those is quite high for what they represent in capabilities.
-
Oh my god its happening. The only way this can get better is if CAS rework hits.
-
Steve you are my own personal hero!
-
The ground force hierarchy construction stuff really was a much requested feature and it sounds great.
I've got another caveat though (yeah I have a "but" for everything :P). I was recently testing to see if commanders of a parent formation actually apply their skill bonus to their subordinate formations and at least for the production and occupation boni it looked to me like they do not apply. (They apply to the units in their own formation, but not to the units in subordinate formations.)
I can't tell if any of the parent HQ skills at all actually apply to the subordinate formations and it would be a shame if they don't, because that would invalidate the benefit of the chain of HQs for ground forces.
Thread: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13051.0
I tried looking for documentation on the chaining of ground force HQ boni in the old C# changelogs, but I couldn't find any explanation for it. I only saw one post that said an explanation would be given in a later post, which I don't think actually happened.
-
About the pooling of GFCC what are the expected losses in efficiency when fragmenting too much into minor tasks? I have not yet resumed playing, so I wonder.
-
New Logistics Orders
I've added two new movement orders:
Refuel Stationary Fleet
Resupply Stationary Fleet
The new orders function in the same way as Refuel from Stationary Fleet and Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship, except the tanker or supply ship is the one receiving the orders and moving to the target fleet.
Would it be hard to make refueling logic treat a fleet as stationary if it's stationary due to order delay? Currently it seems tankers won't refuel a fleet that has a move order that is delayed
-
While working on the ground combat interface... would it be possible to include a peace option for SM where no combat would occur between any factions at war that have it set. I find it to be quite tedious to have to set all factions forces to support and back to attack/defensive line... there can easily also be mistakes which will mess things up.
In many scenarios I have there are many factions on Earth but I rarely want them start attacking each other on Earth.
-
Here is an example organization from the new v2.2 ground combat window.
This was built by clicking the Construct Org button. Every formation in the organization was added to the ground construction queue. Everything is built in order so the parent formations are waiting when the child formations are completed and you end up with the fully assembled organization without having to assign anything manually.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Reich003.PNG)
-
Can default support state be assigned through this interface? So for example not only is the structure built and artillery formations are automatically assignment to support a designated formation too.
-
What is left in a system that goes supernova? Anything? I don't think planets survive supernovae irl, but there should be something left of the star, either a black hole or a neutron star.
-
With the ground force template for ships, will there be an order for fleets to automatically load their template ground troops like they can load ordnance?
-
With the ground force template for ships, will there be an order for fleets to automatically load their template ground troops like they can load ordnance?
Not yet, but it will get added at some point.
-
I'm loving the QoL features so far. I'm almost as excited for this as I was for 2.0!
-
With the ground force template for ships, will there be an order for fleets to automatically load their template ground troops like they can load ordnance?
Not yet, but it will get added at some point.
This is a really great idea, but with it now instant–building parasites and troops it has become a bit difficult to know the amount of points you’re about to spend. Could you add a total cost next to the build button?
-
Amidst all of these very nice changes I can't help but notice the beginnings of another WH40K setting - and perhaps Steve's next AAR? ;D
-
Steve, I just wanted to say that my last long-running game was the first ever in which I made a point of including a small Marine detachment on all of my ships - in no small part because of That Spoiler which likes to do The Bad Touch. (Your ARR's were especially effective in impressing upon me the need for such defenses...) I made them boarding-capable for the hell of it and ended up using them a lot for actual offensive, rather than defensive actions, and due to that I was constantly having to do the "Luna Shuffle" (I moved all my GFCF's to the Moon so I could assign an administrator with a ground forces construction bonus) to replenish forces. It was extremely annoying.
Now I can just issue a single "replace ordinance" order when my units return from the scrap and they will pick up a spare Marine detachment and ditch the damaged one (where it will also now automatically draw supply) and I just... YES. THANK YOU.
-
Amidst all of these very nice changes I can't help but notice the beginnings of another WH40K setting - and perhaps Steve's next AAR? ;D
It would seem so. But we also got screenshots with British and German themed ground units in previous posts, so maybe we will see some multifaction ARR for a change?
-
"A fleet given this order will move to the destination population, where each ship with assigned ground unit templates will load ground formations with the same original template and same size as that original template (no losses)."
What if a ship currently has a damaged formation in its storage? Will it replace the damaged formation with a full strength one of the same template?
-
"A fleet given this order will move to the destination population, where each ship with assigned ground unit templates will load ground formations with the same original template and same size as that original template (no losses)."
What if a ship currently has a damaged formation in its storage? Will it replace the damaged formation with a full strength one of the same template?
If a ship has formations already in its transport bays, it will load from the templates until it runs out of space. In this case, you would need to order an unload first.
-
Particle Beam Size
For v2.2, all particle beams will be 300 tons, regardless of strength.
Even though this is a straightforward change, it is worth noting separately.
......................For some reason I don't know even know what the think about this. Could someone explain why this happened to me?
-
For v2.2, all particle beams will be 300 tons, regardless of strength.
This is huge and my immediate reaction is that it will make particle beams much more attractive, which is good.
Does this mean all particle lances are 600 tons? Or will they retain the older size? That seems pretty strong.
-
I second the question regarding particle lances, that could be quite wild and would definitely make shields much more favourable vs light to medium armors considering RP costs of particle lances.
-
Somebody have a before/after dps per ton chart for this particle beam size change?
-
Heres the Damage per HS comparison for PBs 2.2 and before. Kind of speaks for itself, ironically S2 PBs are slightly weaker but it evens out with S3 and gets better with S4.
Edit: Just checked them against railguns and ehhh well its something.
Note - Something to consider is power draw, PBs need a very high amount of power so they'll fire slower for the same tech level compared to Railguns.
-
I made a couple charts for weapon DPI (5 seconds) at the 60K tech level. NOTE: Raw DPS is far from the only consideration in weapon balance.
This shows the damage per 5 second increment for 66 HS (3300 tons) of weapons. I chose this size because it allowed an even number of both PBs (6 HS) and 35cm lasers (11 HS) ensuring the numbers are not skewed by a rounding.
(http://rainydaygaming.com/posts/aurora-science/DPI-60K.png)
One thing you can take away from this is that the point where Particle-Beam 12 DPI passes 35cm laser shifts from about 180k to 100k with this change. That makes PBs pretty strong for raw damage, but even at the crossover point each PB is doing 12 damage (4 armor penetration) where each laser is doing 22 damage (8 armor penetration). The laser's AP remains better out to 440kkm, at which point it also drops to 4, but that's way beyond the range you will be hitting anything.
I think that makes Particle Beams vs Lasers a more interesting choice. The real loser here is actually railguns, but I think that's okay since PBs are dedicated long range weapons and railguns are meant to be short range. Railguns being better than particle beams for most of effective hitting range (2.1 situation) is pretty weird.
Here is a chart at the same tech level with a bunch of other random weapons thrown. It only goes out to the 50% hit mark.
(http://rainydaygaming.com/posts/aurora-science/DPI-60K-More.png)
If you look at this chart, you immediately see one of the problems with particle beams today (2.1). The PB6 (unchanged in 2.1 and 2.2) has way more DPI than the PB9 or PB12 right now and the damage template means they all pierce 4 layers of armor. That makes the more power hungry PBs in 2.1 strictly inferior.
I chose to show 20cm lasers on this chart because they require the same 6 HS as a PB12, but one thing to note is that the 25cm laser is superior at this TL despite being slightly larger because it has the same ROF 10 as the 20cm.
One weird consequence of this change is that in 2.2 the PB6, PB9 and PB12 at this tech level all have the same DPI because their ROF is 10, 15 and 20 seconds and they're all the same size.
EDIT: Sorry, did not realize how big those images were. :P
-
The real loser here is actually railguns, but I think that's okay since PBs are dedicated long range weapons and railguns are meant to be short range. Railguns being better than particle beams for most of effective hitting range (2.1 situation) is pretty weird.
I'm probably misreading the chart, but why are railguns the real loser when they apparently have higher DPI than lasers at basically all ranges? Because of lower armor penetration?
-
I'm probably misreading the chart, but why are railguns the real loser when they apparently have higher DPI than lasers at basically all ranges? Because of lower armor penetration?
I meant from this specific change. Particle beams and Railguns use the same damage template, so there is no secret bonus inherent in the railguns that doesn't show up in the chart. Particle beams at this tech level now "beat" railguns about 80k earlier than they did before, while lasers still have a distinct advantage even after their DPI falls off. I didn't mean railguns are bad in general or anything, because they totally blow particle beams out of the water at ranges less than 100K, which is supposed to be their niche.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about this change, as I personally thought PBs were a fairly attractive weapon choice. They definitely lack DPI but their strength has always been to put out a lot of damage at long range when every other weapon type is doing 1 damage per hit. I'm curious to hear more about the change from Steve and also to hear about what this means for Particle Lances.
Also: Steve - is this change an EXE change, or accomplished by changing the DB tech values? I hope it is the latter so that the PB sizes would remain open for adjustments to the player's taste.
-
@nuclearslurpee: I took a quick look through the DB and it doesn't look like the weapons are set up in the DB to have their base performance/size edited, so I believe this is an exe change. You can change weapons AFTER they're created/researched, but not before.
-
@nuclearslurpee: I took a quick look through the DB and it doesn't look like the weapons are set up in the DB to have their base performance/size edited, so I believe this is an exe change. You can change weapons AFTER they're created/researched, but not before.
Pretty sure it's like a less than five minute DB edit?
-
@Warer: I haven't done much DB editing, mostly just looking around, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you can point me to the correct table that would change the base size of the entire weapon class.
-
Currently (v2.1), you can generate more noticeably more damage output with several smaller particle beams (PB2 for example) than the same mass of larger particle beams, once you consider damage output, rate of fire given same capacitor tech and total size. The larger ones are now similar in total damage output, but you get more penetration with fewer, larger weapons.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about this change, as I personally thought PBs were a fairly attractive weapon choice. They definitely lack DPI but their strength has always been to put out a lot of damage at long range when every other weapon type is doing 1 damage per hit. I'm curious to hear more about the change from Steve and also to hear about what this means for Particle Lances.
Also: Steve - is this change an EXE change, or accomplished by changing the DB tech values? I hope it is the latter so that the PB sizes would remain open for adjustments to the player's taste.
Its a very simple DB change.
-
Its a very simple DB change.
Thanks Steve! Good to know, though the justification makes good sense to me anyways now.
-
I am salivating over these quality of life changes.
-
I love the latest addition of Combat Comparison. If I may, I don't particularly like the column names Ships Dest and I know it's due to a limit in the number of characters.
Wouldn't be better to rename it Kills?
Just a thought...
-
I love the latest addition of Combat Comparison. If I may, I don't particularly like the column names Ships Dest and I know it's due to a limit in the number of characters.
Wouldn't be better to rename it Kills?
Just a thought...
"Ship Kills" is the same number of characters, and should render a bit narrower in Aurora's font.
-
I love the latest addition of Combat Comparison. If I may, I don't particularly like the column names Ships Dest and I know it's due to a limit in the number of characters.
Wouldn't be better to rename it Kills?
Just a thought...
"Ship Kills" is the same number of characters, and should render a bit narrower in Aurora's font.
I meant just Kills ;D
-
Not sure if this is what you meant but it would be pretty based if you had a 'kills' as in people, so you bomb a planet and immediately start racking up millions.
-
I've changed to 'Ship Kills' - so its clear it doesn't include ground forces or missiles - and also changed 'Missiles Dest' to 'Missile Kills'.
-
Not sure if this is what you meant but it would be pretty based if you had a 'kills' as in people, so you bomb a planet and immediately start racking up millions.
Killtacular!
-
I would be interested in seeing a column for terraforming cost (years to 0. 00) on the "System generation and display" screen if possible.
-
I really hope you have all weapons get a change like the particle beam change, and not just particle beams! Big guns are way cooler than small ones, but as it currently stands, there isn't much benefit to using them. A beam weapon's dps is its capacitor recharge tech, with no gains from increases in focus size except in the possibility for up to 17% shock damage for larger guns, and the hope of immediately penetrating their armor in a single shot - which is really disheartening. it means any size increase for a weapon over your capacity is essentially wasted, because the probably significantly less than 17% shock damage you've increased is practically never worth reducing your effective DPS exactly proportionately to how much over recharge capacity you are, and then some extra because bigger guns take up more space. And for all that cost, all you do is concentrate more damage in a single area according to your damage profile, which when you really think about it, only is potentially useful on lasers that have nice profiles, plasma cannonades whose whole advantage is being bigger really has no advantage at all. It's not impossible for the extra penetration to be worth it, but it's just feels like such a bad trade off, that it makes researching more than your capacitor recharge tech feel like a waste, meaning you mainly go for railguns (single shot) for the extra 33% damage. Ground units gain racial weapon damage from the size of their beam tech, not the capacitor, even though for the ships it's capacitors that really determine damage, so there's clearly something off here.
Also, capacitor recharge rate being your dps means you want more quantity than quality - which is the same strategy that's good as PD, making it such a no-brainer choice.
You could make it always have the same size, and this would probably be the simplest balance wise, but the idea of bigger weapons taking up more space is too cool to not have tbh. So the obvious thought is, increase damage proportionate to the increases in size, whilst keeping recharge costs the same as before, meaning being bigger is just as efficient a weapon in terms of DPS as a capacitor sized one, but benefits from better penetration and range. That way there is 0 reason outside of being worse as PD fire-rate for using bigger weapons, which is of course great because that's a meaningful decision, and big guns are cool.
The big problem is this means there are now MUCH higher penetration weapons in the game, who's only disadvantage is being worse vs missiles and extremely tiny ships. Though it is interesting that this actually does open up some interesting gameplay funny enough. Past a certain point, your weapons are killing your enemy in one hit, so you actually don't want to be too close, nor for your ships to be too large, meaning you're not going to want to be at close range, which is actually some pretty cool emergent gameplay, as well as maybe giving beam fighters a possible beam weapon niche? Armor combined with speed is good vs missiles, so choosing to forgo armor because of the high penetration environment creates a bigger weakness to missiles. it's just such a choice between what you want to be good at??
But well, too much penetration is probably unacceptable tbh, so what if we went with more capacitor efficient than damage efficient? But well, a rapid fire big gun is silly. Maybe the best balance would be a combination of the two approaches, where it is slightly more damage and fire-rate efficient to make up for the increased weaponsize. Also, it probably shouldn't be perfectly efficient but it's still a bit less efficient to make up for the fact that it's benefiting from better penetration / shock damage profile, so light guns are best PD, medium guns are most damage efficient, and heavy guns are best penetration (but not as bad of a deal as they are now), which is just. . . kind of realistic? You could even make it that unlike other weapons plasma cannonades have perfect damage efficiency for their larger sizes, given that their poor damage profile isn't much of an advantage anyways.
Tbh the true solution might be to just make it proportionate in resource cost efficiency, and powerplant efficiency, DPS efficiency be damned. Yeah its weird for something bigger to be cheaper but I mean engines are like that so. Anyways that's enough thinking out loud. Hopefully you will come up with something, because big weapons being bad is sad :( and it would be really cool if they had a niche as a specialized anti-beam-ship weapon.
-
That way there is 0 reason outside of being worse as PD fire-rate for using bigger weapons, which is of course great because that's a meaningful decision, and big guns are cool.
You missing the tiny reason that having a bigger gun also gives you a range advantage. If your enemy both have faster ships and longer range it doesn’t matter that your small weapons have more dps on paper, because in reality their dps will be 0 due to the enemy being able to destroy your entire fleet without moving within fire range of your guns.
-
That way there is 0 reason outside of being worse as PD fire-rate for using bigger weapons, which is of course great because that's a meaningful decision, and big guns are cool.
You missing the tiny reason that having a bigger gun also gives you a range advantage. If your enemy both have faster ships and longer range it doesn’t matter that your small weapons have more dps on paper, because in reality their dps will be 0 due to the enemy being able to destroy your entire fleet without moving within fire range of your guns.
This. Particle beams specifically were changed because you can build a 2-damage PB and a 174526482-damage PB (hypothetical) with the same range. This doesn't apply to any other multiple-damage weapon types, which get more range and better damage falloff with higher calibers. In a beam fight, range + speed is a dominant advantage and it is worth having to pay for in terms of raw damage efficiency.
Also, DPS is not everything, and there is a lot of value to having a big, devastating alpha strike that can take out half the enemy firepower in the first salvo.
-
you're limited by the range of your beam fire control, and high damage slow firing guns don't necessarily deal any more damage at a given range. To my knowledge, the bigger number is divided by the same ratio, and in effect is the same proportion of damage (except in the case of something rounding better. )
Just remember, we're not talking about the tiniest guns, but say a railgun whose weapon's capacity is equivalent to the maximum recharge capacity, which will almost certainly have as much range as your largest fire control. I'm actually using those railguns right now to outrange the raiders in my current game :)
it is kind of sad though, there does seem to be a loss no matter what if you choose to buff for bigger weapons. If you make everything the same size, that's just lame because big guns are cool and should be bigger. If you increase damage, then that massively increases available penetration, which nerfs armor given just how much more damage you'd need to be proportionate. You can make it shoot faster proportionately, but that's silly and makes big guns too viable as PD. Or you can make it cheaper, but then it's like. . . why would adding more mass make it less expensive?? And honestly, I like the idea of a big gun being more expensive. It really does seem in my mind like the best solutions are either keeping everything same size like particle cannons, or at least closer to the same size (which is the simplest), or doing only a moderate damage buff for larger guns, or even a slight combination of the two. Edit: You would probably need to nerf capacitor tech scaling per research point investment to the same proportionate degree as the buff keep the overall damage in line.
the state of plasma cannonades is too pitiful, and more value from being larger is definitely the most appropriate buff for them, because you don't have to worry about penetration-buffing concerns. If they were balanced around dealing as much damage as equivalent railguns, their advantage would be better shock damage, and disadvantage being worse fire-rate for PD, and that's just a pretty cool change overall. Edit: If one wanted to build an alpha-strike weapon, plasma cannonade is probably not the best option as lasers can use reduced size fire mode, so not much sense designing it for this purpose imo.
-
you're limited by the range of your beam fire control, and high damage slow firing guns don't necessarily deal any more damage at a given range. To my knowledge, the bigger number is divided by the same ratio, and in effect is the same proportion of damage (except in the case of something rounding better. )
I did misspeak a bit, as damage falloff is not tied to caliber per se (although there are some breakpoint differences due to rounding). My point was only to highlight that other multiple-damage weapons do have falloff while particle beams do not
However, the advantage of pure range remains and it is in many cases a total advantage for a larger-caliber weapon. If two fleets have equal speeds, the fleet with the longest-ranged weapons can control the engagement completely (barring, um, "pilot error") and fire with impunity while the other fleet is helpless to respond. Range + speed dominance is one of the biggest tactical advantages you can get in Aurora and it is entirely reasonable for that advantage to come at a premium cost of HS and DPS.
In the case of particle beams, the problem is that the range advantage is in no way whatsoever tied to weapon size, which makes larger particle beams virtually useless compared to smaller ones with higher DPS (since particle beam alpha strikes are quite poor unless you have lances). Making them all the same size puts particle beams largely on the same footing, although you still have the choice between rapid-fire and alpha-strike designs as well as specific DPS breakpoints based on your capacitor tech level.
Since lasers, railguns, and carronades do not have the same problem (i.e., larger guns have a range advantage), they do not require the same treatment.
-
release when?
-
you're limited by the range of your beam fire control, and high damage slow firing guns don't necessarily deal any more damage at a given range. To my knowledge, the bigger number is divided by the same ratio, and in effect is the same proportion of damage (except in the case of something rounding better. )
Just remember, we're not talking about the tiniest guns, but say a railgun whose weapon's capacity is equivalent to the maximum recharge capacity, which will almost certainly have as much range as your largest fire control. I'm actually using those railguns right now to outrange the raiders in my current game :)
If that is your concern, then wouldn't the appropriate suggestion to resolve this perceived imbalance be to make sure that beam fire controls are pretty much never the limitation to range?
This could most easily be achieved by lowering tech range multiplier of most of these beam weapons until the range of max caliber guns is the same as or below the max range of same level fire controls ( while still maintaining balance between the weapon types to as large degree as possible ).
Sounds a bit counterintuitive to nerf them to buff them, but the main point here is to give later tech level big guns back a unique range advantage (like exists with TL2-3 beam weapons).
-
you're limited by the range of your beam fire control, and high damage slow firing guns don't necessarily deal any more damage at a given range. To my knowledge, the bigger number is divided by the same ratio, and in effect is the same proportion of damage (except in the case of something rounding better. )
Just remember, we're not talking about the tiniest guns, but say a railgun whose weapon's capacity is equivalent to the maximum recharge capacity, which will almost certainly have as much range as your largest fire control. I'm actually using those railguns right now to outrange the raiders in my current game :)
If that is your concern, then wouldn't the appropriate suggestion to resolve this perceived imbalance be to make sure that beam fire controls are pretty much never the limitation to range?
This could most easily be achieved by lowering tech range multiplier of most of these beam weapons until the range of max caliber guns is the same as or below the max range of same level fire controls ( while still maintaining balance between the weapon types to as large degree as possible ).
Sounds a bit counterintuitive to nerf them to buff them, but the main point here is to give later tech level big guns back a unique range advantage (like exists with TL2-3 beam weapons).
that actually is a great solution that does not require difficult changes to balance around. no joke, especially considering the value of outranging + outmaneuvering is. now you wouldn't be able to outrange without using less efficient dps, but it's worth it because outranging is amazing! It's actually a great solution. It does reduce the effectiveness of area defense PD, but tbh area defense was never that good anyways so who's going to miss it if it's nerfed.
Alternatively, one could even get rid of the range-scaling techs entirely and make it that larger weapons intrinsically scale better with focus sizes, meaning that for ranged combat bigger actually is dealing more damage, and of course there is the natural benefit of at least being able to fire from max range. It's just such a good, fitting change? and it keeps all of the meaningful decisions of do I go bigger to do range? Or do I go smaller for PD? I actually really, really, really like this solution as it runs into none of the previous problems of inflating damage / penetration, and honestly just feels like it makes sense.
it still wouldn't make sense for plasma cannonades to have it though, which being a close ranged weapon who's range still shouldn't scale with tech, would still have no unique advantages for being larger for 0 increase in DPS, so I still think they can do with a unique system that it is their damage that scales with size, not their range, unlike other guns.
-
The restrictions on fire control ranges are for balance purposes. Currently, if you are outranged, or out-gunned at long range, you have an option to build faster ships (where possible) to close that range within a reasonable timeframe. If beam weapons had much greater ranges (due to fire control restrictions being lifted), that option is far less useful because you would likely be destroyed while trying to close through that range. In effect, weapon range alone would become the decisive factor in energy combat.
In terms of supporting technobabble, it would be difficult to hit a ship that could move thousands of kilometres while the shot was moving through space at light speed, which is why fire control is limited to a few light seconds.
It's also worth noting that the current weapon balance is the end result of years of playtesting from many people.
-
Another thing that people also miss most of the time is that ships don't have to stay in one place during fleet combat. This means that not even speed can stop slower ship to get closer to other ships when you use formations etc... So... Simply outnumber the opponent is also a way to close with their ships if they want a fight. This is why I always stick beam weapons on all my ships even if they are slower types... so they can still contribute to the fight by surrounding the opponent rather than chasing them. Sure it requires some micromanagement of ship movement but that's the nature of this game.
-
In terms of supporting technobabble, it would be difficult to hit a ship that could move thousands of kilometres while the shot was moving through space at light speed, which is why fire control is limited to a few light seconds.
It's also worth noting that the current weapon balance is the end result of years of playtesting from many people.
That is no technobabble. Even if the guns were perfectly accurate, it would be impossible to know the point at which to aim them. A target that is 5 lightseconds away has 10 seconds to move out of the way. The coordinates of the target is simply 5 seconds old when you decide to shoot and it takes 5 seconds for the projectile to reach the predicted target location.
During that time the target can move 1/2*a*t^2 meters in a random direction and avoid the fire. At a meager 2g acceleration that gets you 1km out of the line of fire. A trained pilot can do 9g which translates to 4.5km.
-
Ohhh I really like the look of fractional warhead strength!
-
I do not usually post about changes as I find most are good but if the idea is to make non box missiles more useful/better I feel the changes of removing agility is just a flat nerf across the board, combined with fractional warheads which cool are just nerfing lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
I feel missiles need a rethink in the light of Beam PD, nerfing beam pd in some way or providing countermeasures for non box launched missiles, ie laser warheads, decoys, electronic warfare, basically go full honorverse with it.
-
lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
This is specifically incorrect a str 1 warhead is currently needed to kill a missile of any size. With the changes a size 0.5 missile would destroy any missile smaller than size 10 , size 10 missiles are rare so with half the current warhead strength you can destroy most missiles encountered automatically and still have a 50% chance of killing a siz 20 missile.
So in most respects it is a boost for low tech missiles as they can have smaller warheads for the same chance of killing a missile.
The effect of agility on hit chances may be a nerf but you can add extra speed with the size you gain back from smaller warheads and no agility tech
-
Wait agility got removed... >:(
Okay for real to be fair I get it kind of, agility was a bit of a weird mechanic you really needed to break out a spreadsheet to get the most (or anything really) out of it so it getting removed does simplify things in a way that almost certainly improves the game but ehh I liked agility.
-
I do not usually post about changes as I find most are good but if the idea is to make non box missiles more useful/better I feel the changes of removing agility is just a flat nerf across the board, combined with fractional warheads which cool are just nerfing lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
I feel missiles need a rethink in the light of Beam PD, nerfing beam pd in some way or providing countermeasures for non box launched missiles, ie laser warheads, decoys, electronic warfare, basically go full honorverse with it.
Have a read of the current missiles thread. I plan on implementing some additional missile changes.
-
lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
This is specifically incorrect a str 1 warhead is currently needed to kill a missile of any size. With the changes a size 0.5 missile would destroy any missile smaller than size 10 , size 10 missiles are rare so with half the current warhead strength you can destroy most missiles encountered automatically and still have a 50% chance of killing a siz 20 missile.
So in most respects it is a boost for low tech missiles as they can have smaller warheads for the same chance of killing a missile.
The effect of agility on hit chances may be a nerf but you can add extra speed with the size you gain back from smaller warheads and no agility tech
I misread the post then yes that makes more sense but the agility removal does still seriously effect AMMs especially as i said lower tech AMMs which are sitll rarely used, thank you for the correction.
-
I do not usually post about changes as I find most are good but if the idea is to make non box missiles more useful/better I feel the changes of removing agility is just a flat nerf across the board, combined with fractional warheads which cool are just nerfing lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
I feel missiles need a rethink in the light of Beam PD, nerfing beam pd in some way or providing countermeasures for non box launched missiles, ie laser warheads, decoys, electronic warfare, basically go full honorverse with it.
Have a read of the current missiles thread. I plan on implementing some additional missile changes.
I had a quick read and i think there a lot of good changes in there, from my perspective I think the biggest interaction that needs changing is that of the alpha salvo wins all, currently missiles vs PD are a zero sum game either you get through PD or you dont, if this interaction can be changed again to more like how honorverse reads id be really happy, have more of an exchange of weapons, more tactics, loading different kinds of warheads, setting how many decoys to fire this kind of thing will make such combat much more enjoyable.
and it may sound like am asking for missiles be more powerful then what they can be now but if you look at it from a logistics stand point which is often forgotten fighting a war with missile fleets can be incredibly expensive and so they need to be worth that investment.
I support the addition of laser warheads either in way vb6 did it or something else
I support the addition of proper decoys that can be launched with missile waves that have a chance to distract enemy PD fire and also can soak AMMs, say have 100 tubes, 20 S8 Missile tubes and 80 S1 that can fire Decoys which disguise themselves accordingly even Electronic warfare could play in ie if they have ECCM then your ECM theres a higher chance they can see those missiles for what they are.
I support the rethink of point defense modes i liked your suggestion around area defense.
I support the idea of all weapons being viable throughout the game not just when you have certain tech.
I support the idea of improving as much as i know you probably hate to code it the UI in ship combat to be easy to handle more things at once, add a box select, your already adding the assign x button, but look at ways to improve that for missiles as well.
I do not support the idea of blanket nerfs without atleast some idea of how thats gonna be adjusted for.
overall am sure you will figure it out your smarter then me but this is my opinion and what as someone who loves aurora 4x loves what you do with the game would like to see.
P.S <3 honoverse been on a reading spree so am a bit biased hahaha
-
I do not usually post about changes as I find most are good but if the idea is to make non box missiles more useful/better I feel the changes of removing agility is just a flat nerf across the board, combined with fractional warheads which cool are just nerfing lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
I think this is actually a net buff for early game/low tech AMMs. Fitting a full WH1 into a size-1 missile with the lowest tech levels is very difficult, whereas putting say WH0.3 into a size-1 missile at low tech leaves a lot more room for necessary engine size to get a good interception speed. At the same time, with the removal of Agility we won't have higher-tech AMMs becoming dominant against all missiles beyond a certain point in the tech tree, so AMM vs ASM balance will become fairly constant - AMMs will improve at low tech but never become unbeatable at high tech.
A change to make non-box launcher setups viable is going to have to come from making a change relative to box launchers (such as discussed in the ongoing thread Steve referenced), since regardless of how they are launched every missile is subject to the same mechanics once it leaves the tube.
I had a quick read and i think there a lot of good changes in there, from my perspective I think the biggest interaction that needs changing is that of the alpha salvo wins all, currently missiles vs PD are a zero sum game either you get through PD or you dont, if this interaction can be changed again to more like how honorverse reads id be really happy, have more of an exchange of weapons, more tactics, loading different kinds of warheads, setting how many decoys to fire this kind of thing will make such combat much more enjoyable.
One thing I've often thought about is reworking PD to operate on a basis of engaging every missile (or up to some reasonable upper limit) with some %chance per missile to intercept, and all beam PD functioning on a ship-only basis as CIWS does now. This shifts the "all or nothing" current mechanics into a picture where more CIWS attenuates more missiles but there are always at least a few leakers (which I think more realistically reflects how modern air defense works in practice, for example). I don't think this would work in Aurora though which has some established mechanics that need to remain consistent, and I don't know how AMMs would fit into this picture.
-
I do not usually post about changes as I find most are good but if the idea is to make non box missiles more useful/better I feel the changes of removing agility is just a flat nerf across the board, combined with fractional warheads which cool are just nerfing lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
I think this is actually a net buff for early game/low tech AMMs. Fitting a full WH1 into a size-1 missile with the lowest tech levels is very difficult, whereas putting say WH0.3 into a size-1 missile at low tech leaves a lot more room for necessary engine size to get a good interception speed. At the same time, with the removal of Agility we won't have higher-tech AMMs becoming dominant against all missiles beyond a certain point in the tech tree, so AMM vs ASM balance will become fairly constant - AMMs will improve at low tech but never become unbeatable at high tech.
A change to make non-box launcher setups viable is going to have to come from making a change relative to box launchers (such as discussed in the ongoing thread Steve referenced), since regardless of how they are launched every missile is subject to the same mechanics once it leaves the tube.
I had a quick read and i think there a lot of good changes in there, from my perspective I think the biggest interaction that needs changing is that of the alpha salvo wins all, currently missiles vs PD are a zero sum game either you get through PD or you dont, if this interaction can be changed again to more like how honorverse reads id be really happy, have more of an exchange of weapons, more tactics, loading different kinds of warheads, setting how many decoys to fire this kind of thing will make such combat much more enjoyable.
One thing I've often thought about is reworking PD to operate on a basis of engaging every missile (or up to some reasonable upper limit) with some %chance per missile to intercept, and all beam PD functioning on a ship-only basis as CIWS does now. This shifts the "all or nothing" current mechanics into a picture where more CIWS attenuates more missiles but there are always at least a few leakers (which I think more realistically reflects how modern air defense works in practice, for example). I don't think this would work in Aurora though which has some established mechanics that need to remain consistent, and I don't know how AMMs would fit into this picture.
for the first reply, yea my bad i read the change wrong which is why i said that, was corrected promptly :)
-
The ranged defensive fire is unclear to me. Will it work as final fire but with a manually set engagement range or will it be a new area defense mode? Area defense had the huge disadvantage of missiles being able to pass without an intercept.
-
Yeah I wanted to ask about that, too. Will these new PD modes be able to intercept missiles that have travelled a long distance in the last time increment?
-
The ranged defensive fire is unclear to me. Will it work as final fire but with a manually set engagement range or will it be a new area defense mode? Area defense had the huge disadvantage of missiles being able to pass without an intercept.
It works exactly like final fire, except it can target missiles (that don't exist yet) with stand-off warheads. So if a theoretical laser warhead missile is about to detonate at 50,000 km from the target, ranged point defence will engage before it detonates.
Of course, you could argue about how the point defence would know when to target it. I considered having tactical intel on missiles to figure that out, but the reality is that you would adjust after the first detonation so it seemed like a lot of coding to handle that first-and-only situation. Instead, ranged PD will work from the start. There is no manually set engagement range. It will use the max range of the assigned weapons instead.
-
Yeah I wanted to ask about that, too. Will these new PD modes be able to intercept missiles that have travelled a long distance in the last time increment?
The distance they travelled doesn't matter. They are engaged just before the point of detonation.
-
I do not usually post about changes as I find most are good but if the idea is to make non box missiles more useful/better I feel the changes of removing agility is just a flat nerf across the board, combined with fractional warheads which cool are just nerfing lower tech AMMs which are already awful as you need atleast 1 warhead strength to destroy a missile 100% of the time with fractional warheads.
I think this is actually a net buff for early game/low tech AMMs. Fitting a full WH1 into a size-1 missile with the lowest tech levels is very difficult, whereas putting say WH0.3 into a size-1 missile at low tech leaves a lot more room for necessary engine size to get a good interception speed. At the same time, with the removal of Agility we won't have higher-tech AMMs becoming dominant against all missiles beyond a certain point in the tech tree, so AMM vs ASM balance will become fairly constant - AMMs will improve at low tech but never become unbeatable at high tech.
A change to make non-box launcher setups viable is going to have to come from making a change relative to box launchers (such as discussed in the ongoing thread Steve referenced), since regardless of how they are launched every missile is subject to the same mechanics once it leaves the tube.
I had a quick read and i think there a lot of good changes in there, from my perspective I think the biggest interaction that needs changing is that of the alpha salvo wins all, currently missiles vs PD are a zero sum game either you get through PD or you dont, if this interaction can be changed again to more like how honorverse reads id be really happy, have more of an exchange of weapons, more tactics, loading different kinds of warheads, setting how many decoys to fire this kind of thing will make such combat much more enjoyable.
One thing I've often thought about is reworking PD to operate on a basis of engaging every missile (or up to some reasonable upper limit) with some %chance per missile to intercept, and all beam PD functioning on a ship-only basis as CIWS does now. This shifts the "all or nothing" current mechanics into a picture where more CIWS attenuates more missiles but there are always at least a few leakers (which I think more realistically reflects how modern air defense works in practice, for example). I don't think this would work in Aurora though which has some established mechanics that need to remain consistent, and I don't know how AMMs would fit into this picture.
This seems like a great way to render Beam-PD escorts obsolete - I think a compromise solution would be to allow ships to protect eachother using the new area defense mode and then remove the point blank fleet defense mode. But even then at that point it's still probably better to just not bother with dedicated Beam-PD escorts and just have the each individual ship have good defenses.
-
Is the new Ranged Defensive Fire able to fire on single salvo several times if it has enough range and fast enough fire rate?
-
The ranged defensive fire is unclear to me. Will it work as final fire but with a manually set engagement range or will it be a new area defense mode? Area defense had the huge disadvantage of missiles being able to pass without an intercept.
It works exactly like final fire, except it can target missiles (that don't exist yet) with stand-off warheads. So if a theoretical laser warhead missile is about to detonate at 50,000 km from the target, ranged point defence will engage before it detonates.
Of course, you could argue about how the point defence would know when to target it. I considered having tactical intel on missiles to figure that out, but the reality is that you would adjust after the first detonation so it seemed like a lot of coding to handle that first-and-only situation. Instead, ranged PD will work from the start. There is no manually set engagement range. It will use the max range of the assigned weapons instead.
If the assigned weapons have longer range than the BFC, will this firing mode miss all shots by firing at weapon's max range (thus the BFC's max range)?
-
This seems like a great way to render Beam-PD escorts obsolete - I think a compromise solution would be to allow ships to protect eachother using the new area defense mode and then remove the point blank fleet defense mode. But even then at that point it's still probably better to just not bother with dedicated Beam-PD escorts and just have the each individual ship have good defenses.
To be clear: I didn't mean that as a suggestion, as it would require completely redoing beam PD in Aurora from the ground up. It's just an interesting idea to me.
If the assigned weapons have longer range than the BFC, will this firing mode miss all shots by firing at weapon's max range (thus the BFC's max range)?
The firing range is determined by the standoff range of the missiles; your weapons are not firing "as soon as possible" (i.e., at maximum range) but "just in time" (i.e. just at the point where the missile detonates), so I don't think this would be a problem in practice.
-
Is the new Ranged Defensive Fire able to fire on single salvo several times if it has enough range and fast enough fire rate?
As stated in the previous answer:
"It works exactly like final fire, except it can target missiles (that don't exist yet) with stand-off warheads. So if a theoretical laser warhead missile is about to detonate at 50,000 km from the target, ranged point defence will engage before it detonates."
The beam weapons associated with the fire control don't gain any new abilities or lose any existing ones. They fire on the target once, just before it detonates, exactly as they do now.
-
The ranged defensive fire is unclear to me. Will it work as final fire but with a manually set engagement range or will it be a new area defense mode? Area defense had the huge disadvantage of missiles being able to pass without an intercept.
It works exactly like final fire, except it can target missiles (that don't exist yet) with stand-off warheads. So if a theoretical laser warhead missile is about to detonate at 50,000 km from the target, ranged point defence will engage before it detonates.
Of course, you could argue about how the point defence would know when to target it. I considered having tactical intel on missiles to figure that out, but the reality is that you would adjust after the first detonation so it seemed like a lot of coding to handle that first-and-only situation. Instead, ranged PD will work from the start. There is no manually set engagement range. It will use the max range of the assigned weapons instead.
If the assigned weapons have longer range than the BFC, will this firing mode miss all shots by firing at weapon's max range (thus the BFC's max range)?
PD weapons won't fire if they have zero chance to hit - this is the same as all beam weapons now.
-
I don't understand...
How can my ships know the point at which the enemy missiles (will) detonate?
Do they sense/intel the missiles?
If so, how?
ECM and ECCM of the launcher and/or of the missiles don't they protect the missiles, distracting the sensors?
-
Is the new Ranged Defensive Fire able to fire on single salvo several times if it has enough range and fast enough fire rate?
As stated in the previous answer:
"It works exactly like final fire, except it can target missiles (that don't exist yet) with stand-off warheads. So if a theoretical laser warhead missile is about to detonate at 50,000 km from the target, ranged point defence will engage before it detonates."
The beam weapons associated with the fire control don't gain any new abilities or lose any existing ones. They fire on the target once, just before it detonates, exactly as they do now.
So using area fire to have a single dual-purpose weapon fire multiple times is a thing of the past now?
-
Would it be possible to have a weapon on ranged defensive fire, and the next immediate 5sec tick switch to Point-blank and fire again (if the weapon/capacitor reload is 5secs or less)?
-
Why not leave area fire in for those of us that use it from time to time... I mean it would not hurt the game balance in any way and the mechanic is already there?
In my multi-faction games I often intercepted long range slow mirv missiles with beam ships/FAC or fighters... that will not even be possible anymore as you can't hit a missile unless it is about to strike something unless you use an AMM. I really think you should be able to fire on a missile even if it is far away from striking anything with beam weapons.
-
Would it be possible to have a weapon on ranged defensive fire, and the next immediate 5sec tick switch to Point-blank and fire again (if the weapon/capacitor reload is 5secs or less)?
Yes, although you could just leave it on ranged and get the same effect.
-
Why not leave area fire in for those of us that use it from time to time... I mean it would not hurt the game balance in any way and the mechanic is already there?
In my multi-faction games I often intercepted long range slow mirv missiles with beam ships/FAC or fighters... that will not even be possible anymore as you can't hit a missile unless it is about to strike something unless you use an AMM. I really think you should be able to fire on a missile even if it is far away from striking anything with beam weapons.
I think the type of ships suitable for area defence would probably be better on ranged defence, once I add laser warheads, but I agree there is no harm in allowing the choice. Also, I think people are getting confused between area and ranged defence, so clearer to have both. I'll edit the post.
-
Hi Steve,
For the Active Terminal Guidance, does the to-hit chance bonus applied additively or multiplicatively? I.e., is it CTH + 20% or CTH * 1.2 for the first tech tier? If the former, is it applied before or after other bonuses?
-
will a clocking device reduce the hit chance bonus of the ATG?
-
Hi Steve,
For the Active Terminal Guidance, does the to-hit chance bonus applied additively or multiplicatively? I.e., is it CTH + 20% or CTH * 1.2 for the first tech tier? If the former, is it applied before or after other bonuses?
The latter. CTH * 1.2.
-
will a clocking device reduce the hit chance bonus of the ATG?
Cloaking devices have no effect on chances to hit for any weapons. They are just a way to reduce a ship's cross-section for detection purposes.
-
Those two systems seem really nice for missile viability. Assuming you can combine both, it means you can have a really good chance to hit if you get past PD making missiles more efficient.
-
Those two systems seem really nice for missile viability. Assuming you can combine both, it means you can have a really good chance to hit if you get past PD making missiles more efficient.
Indeed, they will be very nice additions to large missiles. However, my concern is the part that it is much more difficult to get a large enough salvo with large missiles to pass PD in the first place. Yes, E-war helps (only when the defender doesn't have them), and the stand-off warhead being discussed helps (by lowering PD hit chance while also lowering damage inflicted by the missile), but it is still much easier just to mass box launcher spam smaller missiles to hit the critical mass to overwhelm the PD.
-
Yeah I agree. Don't really know how it could be changed though. There is a huge strategic cost to using missiles because you have to build and pay for them plus the logistics of it, but you get much better engagement range... At the end of the day it always feels like a all or nothing which is a bummer.
-
I mean one way to get around the "missiles need logistics" problem is to go hog wild and make everything need logistics. Projectile weapons use ammo and small amounts of reactor power, energy weapons don't use ammo but loads of reactor power. Then have reactors need reactor fuel in addition to the propellant that engines use so that even energy weapons now need some sort of logistics requirement.
Or keep it simple and make MSP more of a factor, people often forget that if you don't have maintenance turned off, those weapons failures are meant to actually simulate the logistics of the beam weapons, just so happens that supplying MSP is trivial compared to missile logistics especially since you have to make MSP for ship maintenance anyways.
The advantange of the complex route is that gauss and railguns can now have an "ammo designer", which would probably be the existing missile designer but generalized. It also means that those weapons would also incur the same design costs as missiles such as magazines and whatnot (whereas the "magazine" cost of an energy weapon is the massive reactor taking all the internal space).
On a tangential note I wish weapons failures and ship maintenance were different toggles in game settings. I don't enjoy the whole overhaul aspect and micromanagement but would like my beam weapons to still have that logistics burden on them.
-
Am I correct that "retargeting capability" is not actually retargeting, and overkill salvos still go poof unless missile bears active sensor?
-
I mean one way to get around the "missiles need logistics" problem is to go hog wild and make everything need logistics. Projectile weapons use ammo and small amounts of reactor power, energy weapons don't use ammo but loads of reactor power. Then have reactors need reactor fuel in addition to the propellant that engines use so that even energy weapons now need some sort of logistics requirement.
Or keep it simple and make MSP more of a factor, people often forget that if you don't have maintenance turned off, those weapons failures are meant to actually simulate the logistics of the beam weapons, just so happens that supplying MSP is trivial compared to missile logistics especially since you have to make MSP for ship maintenance anyways.
The advantange of the complex route is that gauss and railguns can now have an "ammo designer", which would probably be the existing missile designer but generalized. It also means that those weapons would also incur the same design costs as missiles such as magazines and whatnot (whereas the "magazine" cost of an energy weapon is the massive reactor taking all the internal space).
On a tangential note I wish weapons failures and ship maintenance were different toggles in game settings. I don't enjoy the whole overhaul aspect and micromanagement but would like my beam weapons to still have that logistics burden on them.
So you would like to have some sort of fuel bunker for power plants? What makes the logistics for war ships so easy is not that fact that there is no logistics, but that MSPs are completely generic. Maybe we need tritanium fuel pellets for the generators to satisfy your demand. Like specialized fuel pellets for every reactor type.
Ammunition for beam weapons is a relatively small issue, as railgun slugs should be pretty simple to make and lightweight. A 10 cm diameter ball of tungsten is just like 10 kg. So you would get 250 of those for each size 1 missile.
-
Am I correct that "retargeting capability" is not actually retargeting, and overkill salvos still go poof unless missile bears active sensor?
That is a very good question. In VB6 you could fire all missile salvos of your fleet into a single ship if the missiles had sensors. The ship would be intercepted by one salvo after another until it was destroyed and the remaining salvos would pick different targets within the area. In C# all salvos intercepting the ship within the same increment would be spent and those arriving later would intercept a different vessel. This made a huge difference in missile combat. I do hope that retargeting does not change that as missiles would become significantly more powerful. My head lore was that these missiles do not miss, but either impact a dead ship or get destroyed in the exploding ship's shrapnel.
-
Am I correct that "retargeting capability" is not actually retargeting, and overkill salvos still go poof unless missile bears active sensor?
Yes, that's correct. Maybe I need a better name :)
-
a pretty damm stupid question - and sorry for asking but...
Steve, do you still have the codebase of your 2.2.0 Aurora without the missle changes? And could you release this as 2.2.0 and the missle changes as 2.3.0?
I really like the missle changes but I would think that with propper playtesting of the new systems, 2.2.0 will be delayed for 3-6 month at least - so maybe - if possible - it would be a good idea to bring the 2.2.0 live with the bugfixes and changes so far (before the missle stuff
if it is not possible, c'est la vie .. but I thought it would be worth asking
-
Am I correct that "retargeting capability" is not actually retargeting, and overkill salvos still go poof unless missile bears active sensor?
Yes, that's correct. Maybe I need a better name :)
Rehoming?
-
a pretty damm stupid question - and sorry for asking but...
Steve, do you still have the codebase of your 2.2.0 Aurora without the missle changes? And could you release this as 2.2.0 and the missle changes as 2.3.0?
I really like the missle changes but I would think that with propper playtesting of the new systems, 2.2.0 will be delayed for 3-6 month at least - so maybe - if possible - it would be a good idea to bring the 2.2.0 live with the bugfixes and changes so far (before the missle stuff
if it is not possible, c'est la vie .. but I thought it would be worth asking
Counterpoint: I'm waiting for 2.2 to come out to start a campaign, and I wouldn't want to start this campaign without the coming missile changes as I would very much like missile warfare to be a part of that campaign. If missile warfare is pushed to 2.3, we will not see it for a year as Steve will come up with other ideas to add to that patch to delay even more. :P
-
a pretty damm stupid question - and sorry for asking but...
Steve, do you still have the codebase of your 2.2.0 Aurora without the missle changes? And could you release this as 2.2.0 and the missle changes as 2.3.0?
I really like the missle changes but I would think that with propper playtesting of the new systems, 2.2.0 will be delayed for 3-6 month at least - so maybe - if possible - it would be a good idea to bring the 2.2.0 live with the bugfixes and changes so far (before the missle stuff
if it is not possible, c'est la vie .. but I thought it would be worth asking
There are no different code bases - just the current version - so the missile changes are already in.
-
The cost of adding a laser warhead is equal to the Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency / 100 and uses Corundium. The size of the component is 0.25 MSP.So missiles equipped with laser warheads have a 'regular' explosive warhead, and an additional 0.25MSP component described here to convert the explosion energy to laser, is that the correct understanding?
-
The cost of adding a laser warhead is equal to the Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency / 100 and uses Corundium. The size of the component is 0.25 MSP.So missiles equipped with laser warheads have a 'regular' explosive warhead, and an additional 0.25MSP component described here to convert the explosion energy to laser, is that the correct understanding?
Yes, that's correct. It's based on Project Excalibur in the 1980s and I had a much more detailed version in Newtonian Aurora. For C# Aurora though, I borrowed the mechanics principle from Starfire 3rd edition.
-
I know it is still pending playtest, but I think the current research cost for setting up laser missiles is a bit steep
In the lists below, techs related to general shipbuilding and sensors are omitted as they will be researched anyway.
The current tech lines are needed for a certain type of beam weapon:
Wavelength/focus/range tech
Caliber tech
Capacitor recharge tech
BFC range
BFC tracking speed
For normal missiles, the following 65 techs are needed:
Warhead tech
Launcher reload tech
Magazine efficiency tech
Magazine ejection tech
Agility tech
Ordnance Production tech
Laser missiles need the following 3 techs in addition:
Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency tech
Laser Warhead Focus
Laser Warhead Tracking Range
Admittedly these tech lines are shorter tech lines, but at the early game the additional RP requirement is significant. I hope laser warheads are really powerful after all these researches :D
-
I know it is still pending playtest, but I think the current research cost for setting up laser missiles is a bit steep
In the lists below, techs related to general shipbuilding and sensors are omitted as they will be researched anyway.
The current tech lines are needed for a certain type of beam weapon:
Wavelength/focus/range tech
Caliber tech
Capacitor recharge tech
BFC range
BFC tracking speed
For normal missiles, the following 65 techs are needed:
Warhead tech
Launcher reload tech
Magazine efficiency tech
Magazine ejection tech
Agility tech
Ordnance Production tech
Laser missiles need the following 3 techs in addition:
Laser Warhead Damage Efficiency tech
Laser Warhead Focus
Laser Warhead Tracking Range
Admittedly these tech lines are shorter tech lines, but at the early game the additional RP requirement is significant. I hope laser warheads are really powerful after all these researches :D
The first tech line is definitely needed. However, I did a lot of back and forth in my head about whether to add the focus and tracking techs. The alternative is to use existing laser wavelength tech instead of focus and a 2x multiplier of the the existing beam fire control range instead of tracking range. I ended up with the extra lines for two reasons. Firstly, laser wavelength isn't the same thing as focusing x-rays from a detonation so the techs don't match. Secondly, I didn't want a missile-focused race to be too dependent on non-missile tech lines, or create an incentive for a missile race using laser warheads to always select lasers for energy weapons. I also considered making the techs cheaper, but was concerned that would give missiles a superior effective range compared to ship-mounted lasers for the less research cost. That might still be fine, as the weapons are one use, but it just seemed odd. Finally, laser warheads are really a new weapon system compared to normal missile, so it seemed reasonable to have additional techs.
Having said all that, I might change it after playtest. This is not something I am convinced about either way.
-
It might be worth putting the laser warhead techs into the Energy Weapons research category. That will let a missile-heavy race get better use from EW scientists, especially with reduced research admin meaning you want to use a larger group of scientists anyways.
Missile-based races already tend to be heavy into the kinetic weapon techs as well since Gauss is the best PD weapon type (and is needed if you want to use CIWS) and railguns are generally second-best for PD and provide a balanced all-purpose weapon type. This way, EW scientists remain useful without forcing a missile-based race into lasers, etc. just to fill lab space.
-
Does retargeting capability work against missiles?
If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).
But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.
At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.
-
Does retargeting capability work against missiles?
Yes. AMM-vs-ASM is not mechanically any different than ASM-vs-Ship, and yes this does mean AMMs can potentially be much more effective if you make an effective fleet doctrine to use this new mechanic.
-
The single-shot railgun nerf was very necessary, it was basically a laser with better dps, it is a good change.
I like the new missile changes thematically too, with them swarming like torpedos is just cool and makes sense. Missiles not absolutely needing to be so fast from "eventually you'll hit it" mechanics means that everyone can use missiles moderately effective now, as even a weight-inefficient missile is still technically costs the same BP, so i can finally put a dent in that 500k tritanium stockpile I have sitting around without wasting 500k of my precious gallicite.
My personal counter to box-launched missiles as a no missiles beamship-guy was to just to build a 300% speed, very highly armored 13000 ton """fighter""", that could withstand the entire volly without any shock damage. Given that missiles at base only hit like 10%-30% of the time, speed was effectively multiplying my HP significantly more than straight armor would, meaning it certainly wouldn't be cost efficient, and I personally found in my tests it was able to defeat 2 box launching missile cruisers of equal tonnage, (though this probably wouldn't work as well at later techs).
Now that's no longer the case, because missiles using less important resources, and the fact that they "always hit", slowness from weight inefficiency and low agility doesn't actually reduce any DPS in terms of cost efficiency, it just makes it more interceptable. (in the case of above, speed is no longer like a multiplier for your HP vs missiles - you NEED to out PD them, so my Armored train that's running into them isn't *necessarily* more cost efficient anymore. ) I also appreciate that it gives more time for detection bonuses and means there is more hit opportunities for box launched. I feel that missiles being a more viable secondary weapon for non-specialists fills an important niche to kill beam ships that out-maneuver and out-range; it's just such a necessary thing to give out-teched people for a chance at least deal some damage, instead of 0 damage, although I guess there's always STO's.
-
Does retargeting capability work against missiles?
If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).
But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.
At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.
Yes, this would be a valid use. To be honest I was thinking about ASMs, not AMMs, when I created the component. It certainly would make AMMs a lot more effective - possibly too effective. I need to see how this works in playtest.
-
Does retargeting capability work against missiles?
If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).
But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.
At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.
Yes, this would be a valid use. To be honest I was thinking about ASMs, not AMMs, when I created the component. It certainly would make AMMs a lot more effective - possibly too effective. I need to see how this works in playtest.
I would not see this as a huge problem for AMMs, as the modules require quite a bit of the small missile's displacement. It could simply be balanced by making it fatter.
-
Does retargeting capability work against missiles?
If so, it seems like this can be used to make much more cost effective AMMs. You roughly double the size and cost of the AMM to fit the retargeting, so you get 1/4 as many AMMs per enemy salvo per ton of launcher (half fire rate and half as many launchers).
But if the AMM is faster than the target missile, as long as it intercepts more than 10 seconds before detonation it will get 3 attack rolls and so the average missiles killed/cost of AMM goes up. If you can get four rolls, which is not hard not hard I think, you actually come out ahead in missiles killed/ton of launcher.
At early TN tech: 1 million km launch range with 25kkm/s speed of ASM is reasonable. If AMM isn't much faster that leads to intercept at 500kkm and means you get 4 rolls. Since AMMs are now size 2 they should have plenty of fuel to go a million kms.
Yes, this would be a valid use. To be honest I was thinking about ASMs, not AMMs, when I created the component. It certainly would make AMMs a lot more effective - possibly too effective. I need to see how this works in playtest.
I would not see this as a huge problem for AMMs, as the modules require quite a bit of the small missile's displacement. It could simply be balanced by making it fatter.
Yes, agree that is the simplest solution. 0.75 instead of 0.5 would make significantly more difference to AMM than ASM. I'll see how it performs before making any adjustments though.
-
-Snipped previous-
The first tech line is definitely needed. However, I did a lot of back and forth in my head about whether to add the focus and tracking techs. The alternative is to use existing laser wavelength tech instead of focus and a 2x multiplier of the the existing beam fire control range instead of tracking range. I ended up with the extra lines for two reasons. Firstly, laser wavelength isn't the same thing as focusing x-rays from a detonation so the techs don't match. Secondly, I didn't want a missile-focused race to be too dependent on non-missile tech lines, or create an incentive for a missile race using laser warheads to always select lasers for energy weapons. I also considered making the techs cheaper, but was concerned that would give missiles a superior effective range compared to ship-mounted lasers for the less research cost. That might still be fine, as the weapons are one use, but it just seemed odd. Finally, laser warheads are really a new weapon system compared to normal missile, so it seemed reasonable to have additional techs.
Having said all that, I might change it after playtest. This is not something I am convinced about either way.
I think that regardless, it's not a horrendous idea to through tech encourage dipping into multiple techs. Some of the changes that are coming are based around the idea of multi layered defense, which, given the removal of agility, means that it will become increasingly more difficult to only pursue one type of tech exclusively. While I agree with your reasoning for the most part, I think there's room to for instance, have the tracking range base off of normal BFC range, as it both makes sense, and it does encourage multidisciplinary research. And seeing as BFC range is one of the more universal beam researches, you can pick it up and basically go with whatever beam weapon you want, even cannonades. I believe removing the tech for tracking range and subsittuting it for as you mentioned, 2 X Beam tracking range would be ideal, as it would not only be consistent, but also allow for you to in the future tune the beam fire control ranges of well every beam weapon, without forgetting about Missile beams, and vice versa.
-
This change applies to:
Population Importance
Naval Admin Command Importance
Ship Class Commander Priority
Ship Class Point Defence Protection Priority (new for v2.2)
Ship Class Refuel Priority
Ship Class Resupply Priority
Ship Class Maintenance Priority
Ship Refuel Priority
Ship Resupply Priority
Fire Control PD Priority (new for v2.2)
If am I missing anything from that list, please mention it on the changes discussion thread.
Ground unit replacement logic is another area this may impact.
-
So what do the FC and PDP priorities mean in practice?
Will FCs with higher PD priority prefer to target missile salvos over other ships? Will ships with higher PDP receive more firepower from other ships against missiles that are targeting them? Is it weighted or absolute?
-
So what do the FC and PDP priorities mean in practice?
Will FCs with higher PD priority prefer to target missile salvos over other ships? Will ships with higher PDP receive more firepower from other ships against missiles that are targeting them? Is it weighted or absolute?
He explained them here:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13191.msg164204#msg164204
-
So what do the FC and PDP priorities mean in practice?
Will FCs with higher PD priority prefer to target missile salvos over other ships? Will ships with higher PDP receive more firepower from other ships against missiles that are targeting them? Is it weighted or absolute?
I'm pretty sure it is Absolut as everything else in the game tend to be that. Personally I would have preferred that more things were weighted values rather than absolute, would feel a bit more realistic in my opinion.
-
The new missile design options in combination with fractional warhead option really makes for a wider range of interesting choices. Smaller AMMs will be much more efficient on magazine space, but struggle more against larger missiles, which will also be packing ECM to protect against them, and will have greater lethality than smaller missiles in a qualitative, not just quantitative sense.
-
Is there a particular reason you chose to have CIWS stay the way it was? (Ergo, no wasted shots) Or am I missing something?
Edit: It might make sense instead for the CIWS to assign a single shot per missile of it's available shots, and all CIWS rus through the lists this way assigning one shot each until they run out of shots and then processing this as the final batch.
-
Is there a particular reason you chose to have CIWS stay the way it was? (Ergo, no wasted shots) Or am I missing something?
Edit: It might make sense instead for the CIWS to assign a single shot per missile of it's available shots, and all CIWS rus through the lists this way assigning one shot each until they run out of shots and then processing this as the final batch.
Partly because that is the way that CIWS works in reality, partly because it is defending at very close range against targets heading directly toward it and partly because it gives CIWS a unique capability which provides more interesting ship design decisions.
-
CIWS on every ship! :)
-
CIWS on every ship! :)
I am actually thinking this way and looking forward to it, although we will see what the balance looks like (i.e. how much NPRs can use these new features).
-
Could we get option to set our fire controls to ignore certain missiles? I think I asked for this before, but I think it is more important now, with PD weapons failures and AMMs with small warheads that are unable to penetrate armour.
-
Could we get option to set our fire controls to ignore certain missiles? I think I asked for this before, but I think it is more important now, with PD weapons failures and AMMs with small warheads that are unable to penetrate armour.
Do you mean missiles of a particular type, or certain salvos?
-
Could we get option to set our fire controls to ignore certain missiles? I think I asked for this before, but I think it is more important now, with PD weapons failures and AMMs with small warheads that are unable to penetrate armour.
Do you mean missiles of a particular type, or certain salvos?
I think I would prefer for particular type of missile to be excluded. My main issue is when I deal with mix of AMMs and ASMs, then I may want to ignore AMMs.
Maybe some settings that would prevent launch of my AMMs against certain type of missiles if magazines are bellow certain level of capacity or something like this could also be useful.
-
That would also make it possible to completely ignore decoy missiles, which I guess is either a good or a bad thing depending on what your opinion on them is.
Or wait, since most PD modes automatically fire on missiles just before they detonate, does that mean decoys are already ignored automatically unless you use that area defense mode?
-
That would also make it possible to completely ignore decoy missiles, which I guess is either a good or a bad thing depending on what your opinion on them is.
Or wait, since most PD modes automatically fire on missiles just before they detonate, does that mean decoys are already ignored automatically unless you use that area defense mode?
The text in my post states: "Every salvo arriving at its destination, whether in the same location as the target or at the detonation location for stand-off ordnance, is added to a list called ‘Salvos On Target’."
Its not detonation per se, but arriving at its destination. Assuming by decoy you mean a missile without a warhead, it would be treated as any other missile arriving at its destination.
-
That would also make it possible to completely ignore decoy missiles, which I guess is either a good or a bad thing depending on what your opinion on them is.
You can ignore certain missile salvos now as well, but you need to control your PD defences completely manually, which is time consuming.
I mostly want this to be able to ignore Precursor AMM spam when I play with race that uses AMMs without manually controlling my AMM launchers. So for me it would be sufficient to have setting that allows me to ignore missiles of certain size. In case of the Precursors, when I enter their system, I would set that I want to ignore size 1 missiles and that would be it. My AMMs would launch against their ASMs and not be wasted on enemy AMM missiles, which can be handled by PD guns or shields or armour. Or they could be completely ignored in new version if they have 0.5 size warhead, but I presume Steve will program NPRs and spoilers to not waste such missiles against ships.
If we get true decoy missiles like dazzlers or dragon's teeth from Honorverse then I suppose we would need to come with different solution.
-
I mostly want this to be able to ignore Precursor AMM spam when I play with race that uses AMMs without manually controlling my AMM launchers. So for me it would be sufficient to have setting that allows me to ignore missiles of certain size. In case of the Precursors, when I enter their system, I would set that I want to ignore size 1 missiles and that would be it. My AMMs would launch against their ASMs and not be wasted on enemy AMM missiles, which can be handled by PD guns or shields or armour. Or they could be completely ignored in new version if they have 0.5 size warhead, but I presume Steve will program NPRs and spoilers to not waste such missiles against ships.
I will note that even more generally, we really would benefit from having a smoother control for AMMs. One reason I tend to avoid using AMMs is because it is a pain to manually set/reset their fire controls based on whether or not you actually want/need to use them for PD against a particular opponent. It would be nice if there was a button to turn on/off AMM fire, so if I'm facing a minor missile attack I can just let my guns handle it instead of wasting a bunch of ordnance without having to reconfigure a bunch of MFCs.
-
I mostly want this to be able to ignore Precursor AMM spam when I play with race that uses AMMs without manually controlling my AMM launchers. So for me it would be sufficient to have setting that allows me to ignore missiles of certain size. In case of the Precursors, when I enter their system, I would set that I want to ignore size 1 missiles and that would be it. My AMMs would launch against their ASMs and not be wasted on enemy AMM missiles, which can be handled by PD guns or shields or armour. Or they could be completely ignored in new version if they have 0.5 size warhead, but I presume Steve will program NPRs and spoilers to not waste such missiles against ships.
I will note that even more generally, we really would benefit from having a smoother control for AMMs. One reason I tend to avoid using AMMs is because it is a pain to manually set/reset their fire controls based on whether or not you actually want/need to use them for PD against a particular opponent. It would be nice if there was a button to turn on/off AMM fire, so if I'm facing a minor missile attack I can just let my guns handle it instead of wasting a bunch of ordnance without having to reconfigure a bunch of MFCs.
In my opinion there are two things I would like... as you said... turn them off so they don't and able to set a minimum range where they will no engage any missiles at all.
Especially now you might want to have some FC to engage missiles at long range and some at shorter range and at some point you might want to ignore them and focus on incoming missiles or just let PD handle it from there.
-
Does the Missile Retargeting Capability work on laser warhead missiles?
-
Does the Missile Retargeting Capability work on laser warhead missiles?
As things currently stand, yes. However, I am considering making it interception only.
-
I really like the ECCM rework, cuts down on menu fidling and gives Beam FireCon more depth.
-
I mostly want this to be able to ignore Precursor AMM spam when I play with race that uses AMMs without manually controlling my AMM launchers. So for me it would be sufficient to have setting that allows me to ignore missiles of certain size. In case of the Precursors, when I enter their system, I would set that I want to ignore size 1 missiles and that would be it. My AMMs would launch against their ASMs and not be wasted on enemy AMM missiles, which can be handled by PD guns or shields or armour. Or they could be completely ignored in new version if they have 0.5 size warhead, but I presume Steve will program NPRs and spoilers to not waste such missiles against ships.
I will note that even more generally, we really would benefit from having a smoother control for AMMs. One reason I tend to avoid using AMMs is because it is a pain to manually set/reset their fire controls based on whether or not you actually want/need to use them for PD against a particular opponent. It would be nice if there was a button to turn on/off AMM fire, so if I'm facing a minor missile attack I can just let my guns handle it instead of wasting a bunch of ordnance without having to reconfigure a bunch of MFCs.
In my opinion there are two things I would like... as you said... turn them off so they don't and able to set a minimum range where they will no engage any missiles at all.
Especially now you might want to have some FC to engage missiles at long range and some at shorter range and at some point you might want to ignore them and focus on incoming missiles or just let PD handle it from there.
Maybe an on/off button in the fleet window like the active sensor one.
-
d) For each missile in the 'Missile List', the fire control cycles th(r)ough each weapon
If these weapons are ordered in the list by default (record number), we'd often have a weirdish-looking leaks, when this cycle would use longer ranged weapons first and then find no weapon capable of reaching the rest of the missiles in the list. So, I think it would be better to have weapons in this list ordered by their max range asc, so that every FC will use shortest-ranged weapons against closest missiles first. Otherwise it will be a tedious work for players to avoid this strangeness by distributing weapons between FCs by their range strictly.
-
--- Wait, the Compact-ECM and Small Craft ECM have been removed? Or is that a typo?
-
I really like that CIWS is a proper final defensive layer now. I imagine we will probably start seeing them appear on actual warships (at least important ones) with this update.
-
--- Wait, the Compact-ECM and Small Craft ECM have been removed? Or is that a typo?
I think Steve means to change slightly how these work and have not communicated this yet.
-
d) For each missile in the 'Missile List', the fire control cycles th(r)ough each weapon
If these weapons are ordered in the list by default (record number), we'd often have a weirdish-looking leaks, when this cycle would use longer ranged weapons first and then find no weapon capable of reaching the rest of the missiles in the list. So, I think it would be better to have weapons in this list ordered by their max range asc, so that every FC will use shortest-ranged weapons against closest missiles first. Otherwise it will be a tedious work for players to avoid this strangeness by distributing weapons between FCs by their range strictly.
The player can choose to assign his shorter range weapons to high priority fire controls. That gives him more control than forcing shorter range weapons to fire first. There may be situations where the latter behaviour isn't desired.
-
--- Wait, the Compact-ECM and Small Craft ECM have been removed? Or is that a typo?
Its a typo - I meant Compact-ECCM and Small Craft ECCM
-
With the suggested changes to ECM/ECCM, a difference of 5 levels in tech equal to 0% chance to hit. At the same time, CIWS only gets 50% of the ECCM tech effect. Will this change or will CIWS become less and less relevant with tech progression?
-
The player can choose to assign his shorter range weapons to high priority fire controls. That gives him more control than forcing shorter range weapons to fire first. There may be situations where the latter behaviour isn't desired.
I didn't mean to replace your mechanics with just shorter ranged weapons firing first. What I did mean is to use weapons, that are already assigned to some (choosen) fire control, in order of their max range ascending (the same way their targets are already ordered).
It will not change the option to diligently manually assign shorter ranged weapons to a separate FC with higher priorities (or other way around) and so make a leak even less probable just with a cost of more FCs to build and more micromanagenent to bring on. Yet it can make manual reassignments less tedios during battle and a rule "you need a separate FC for every max range of weapons or your PD will strangely leak" less suppressing.
-
I didn't mean to replace your mechanics with just shorter ranged weapons firing first. What I did mean is to use weapons, that are already assigned to some (choosen) fire control, in order of their max range ascending (the same way their targets are already ordered).
It will not change the option to diligently manually assign shorter ranged weapons to a separate FC with higher priorities (or other way around) and so make a leak even less probable just with a cost of more FCs to build and more micromanagenent to bring on. Yet it can make manual reassignments less tedios during battle and a rule "you need a separate FC for every max range of weapons or your PD will strangely leak" less suppressing.
If I read this correctly, it sounds like the concern is that the auto-assignment would assign a missile at a short range to the longer-range weapon, and then when the shorter-range weapon (assigned to the same BFC) looks for a target it might not be able to find one even though there are missiles at a longer range - which the longer-range weapon could have targeted.
So the suggestion is, for weapons assigned to the same BFC, that the shortest-range weapon (within a group of weapons at the same priority) should have target assigned first to prevent this possibility.
I think it is probably a rare edge case, both practically and because most people use dedicated BFCs per weapon type for point defense, but I can see how one might end up sing BFCs "suboptimally" in several cases (either roleplay or out of necessity) so it is probably worth the correction. Of course, weapons assigned to different BFCs would be handled as Steve already described.
@serger does this sound correct?
-
@serger does this sound correct?
Yep. Sorry for my clumpsy English.
Honestly I know little about designs normal players use. I can look at it from my own design habits, and I prefer fast ships that in most cases just needed no layered FCs despite having different ranges of weapons. Slow turretted ships are completely another world, probably.
P.S. Though I see some players understood my concerns too.
-
The player can choose to assign his shorter range weapons to high priority fire controls. That gives him more control than forcing shorter range weapons to fire first. There may be situations where the latter behaviour isn't desired.
I didn't mean to replace your mechanics with just shorter ranged weapons firing first. What I did mean is to use weapons, that are already assigned to some (choosen) fire control, in order of their max range ascending (the same way their targets are already ordered).
It will not change the option to diligently manually assign shorter ranged weapons to a separate FC with higher priorities (or other way around) and so make a leak even less probable just with a cost of more FCs to build and more micromanagenent to bring on. Yet it can make manual reassignments less tedios during battle and a rule "you need a separate FC for every max range of weapons or your PD will strangely leak" less suppressing.
I forgot to mention it in the changes post, but when a fire control cycles through weapons to assign to targets, it does so in ascending order of weapon range. Is that what you mean?
-
I forgot to mention it in the changes post, but when a fire control cycles through weapons to assign to targets, it does so in ascending order of weapon range. Is that what you mean?
Yep!
-
For the missile retargeting, could I theoretically launch missiles with 0 warhead, 0 agility, and all fuel/engines to just make a swarm around an enemy ship that will last for hours?
-
--- So, when can we expect to get our hands on 2.2? ;D
-
For the missile retargeting, could I theoretically launch missiles with 0 warhead, 0 agility, and all fuel/engines to just make a swarm around an enemy ship that will last for hours?
No, because it will still attack and be destroyed, or hit by point defence. A lack of warhead doesn't prevent a missile from attacking.
-
--- So, when can we expect to get our hands on 2.2? ;D
It will be ready when it will be readyTM
-
--- So, when can we expect to get our hands on 2.2? ;D
Soon™ ;)
-
Holy moly. Work sends me away for a few weeks and I missed a lot!
Overall, love the sound of the changes made so far. In particular the re-worked PD mechanics are great. I also like the addition of more components that can be added to missiles, giving reasons to decide to build larger ones.
I'll add two points that I picked up from following Nebulous: Fleet Command's missile re-balance. They had a similar problem: All-or-nothing missile combats, dominated by massive swarms of cheap missiles to overwhelm PD. A couple of the solutions used there could be applicable:
1. Add more penetration aids, to make larger ship-killers with expensive features more lethal by giving them more options to penetrate PD fire.
I see the ECM has been re-worked, which I think will prove to be a good move. ECM is a good way to abstract many of the specific penaids that Nebulous allows (decoys, jammers, more decoys, evasive terminal attack profiles etc), under one heading. I'd just ask that if we're only going to have the one penaid option (ECM), can we make it non-binary? I.e. I'd like to see the option to pay more mass to get more ECM.
Perhaps instead of a tickbox, on/off arrangement, we could enter a value like we do for sensors, and get certain number of ECM points per MSP. If it was scaled exponentially relative to the racial ECM tech level, that'd make going over the current ECM tech expensive and of limited value, keeping useful ECM values close to the racial level, but allowing some variation and design compromises.
2. Put limits on salvo sizes, to make a doctrine based around large salvoes have significant trade-offs in terms of fire control.
I see this did get brought up in the discussions, but mostly dismissed. I think this was probably the biggest thing in Nebulous that forced players to start experimenting with smaller, more lethal salvoes. I think we should consider it further for Aurora. Something like an MFC tech line that increases number of missiles that can controlled at once? Or maybe just the number launched at once?
The idea would be to add more of a trade off to going for large missile swarms. Combined with making smaller, more lethal salvoes more viable, it would hopefully give a wider range of viable tactics.
-
You should probably note that the to-hit chance penalty applies multiplicatively now instead of additively.
It does, right?
Since before it was additive, i.e. a 35% hit chance with a 20% ECM reduction would get reduced to 15% hit chance.
Now it's 20% of those 35%, so it'll get reduced by 7% to 28% hit chance.
A note and example like that would help clarify, especially since it was the other way around before. The change itself I like, as it makes a tech advantage less oppressive.
-
You should probably note that the to-hit chance penalty applies multiplicatively now instead of additively.
It does, right?
Since before it was additive, i.e. a 35% hit chance with a 20% ECM reduction would get reduced to 15% hit chance.
Now it's 20% of those 35%, so it'll get reduced by 7% to 28% hit chance.
A note and example like that would help clarify, especially since it was the other way around before. The change itself I like, as it makes a tech advantage less oppressive.
Yes, except that each level of ECM counts for twice as much, so it'd be more like:
old: 35% - 20% = 15%
new: 35% * 0.6 = 21%
-
Holy moly. Work sends me away for a few weeks and I missed a lot!
Overall, love the sound of the changes made so far. In particular the re-worked PD mechanics are great. I also like the addition of more components that can be added to missiles, giving reasons to decide to build larger ones.
I'll add two points that I picked up from following Nebulous: Fleet Command's missile re-balance. They had a similar problem: All-or-nothing missile combats, dominated by massive swarms of cheap missiles to overwhelm PD. A couple of the solutions used there could be applicable:
1. Add more penetration aids, to make larger ship-killers with expensive features more lethal by giving them more options to penetrate PD fire.
I see the ECM has been re-worked, which I think will prove to be a good move. ECM is a good way to abstract many of the specific penaids that Nebulous allows (decoys, jammers, more decoys, evasive terminal attack profiles etc), under one heading. I'd just ask that if we're only going to have the one penaid option (ECM), can we make it non-binary? I.e. I'd like to see the option to pay more mass to get more ECM.
Perhaps instead of a tickbox, on/off arrangement, we could enter a value like we do for sensors, and get certain number of ECM points per MSP. If it was scaled exponentially relative to the racial ECM tech level, that'd make going over the current ECM tech expensive and of limited value, keeping useful ECM values close to the racial level, but allowing some variation and design compromises.
2. Put limits on salvo sizes, to make a doctrine based around large salvoes have significant trade-offs in terms of fire control.
I see this did get brought up in the discussions, but mostly dismissed. I think this was probably the biggest thing in Nebulous that forced players to start experimenting with smaller, more lethal salvoes. I think we should consider it further for Aurora. Something like an MFC tech line that increases number of missiles that can controlled at once? Or maybe just the number launched at once?
The idea would be to add more of a trade off to going for large missile swarms. Combined with making smaller, more lethal salvoes more viable, it would hopefully give a wider range of viable tactics.
The EW update I posted was mainly to emphasise the change from absolute to relative.
I am currently in the process of splitting ECM into three categories. Sensor jammers that reduce the effective range of active sensors and missile fire controls vs the protected ship (although cross-section remains the same), fire control jammers that interfere with ship to ship targeting systems (reducing to-hit for beam fire controls) and missile jammers that attempt to degrade the link between missiles and their parent fire control systems (reducing to-hit for missiles). Each one has its own tech progression with half the RP requirements of the current ECM progression. I might change the sensor jammers to -20% per point of difference. At the moment these are all 150 tons, so smaller classes may only mount one or two rather than all three, probably based on their role. They may also have different tech lines at different stages, probably depending on the nature of the opponents.
The next part is thinking out loud and hasn't been coded yet.
Given the nature of these changes (there are no compact versions yet), I will probably replace the ubiquitous ECM component from missiles (ECCM will remain) with a new line of decoys with ECM tech built in - probably 0.25 MSP for the controller and maybe 0.5 MSP to 1 MSP each for the decoys. Rather than track these independently, the mechanics will assume they are deployed at an appropriate time. When the missile is attacked by PD or AMM, the chance of hitting the actual missile will 1 / (1 + Decoys). If a decoy is hit, it will noted as such in the combat log and removed for future checks. If the attacking missile or fire control has ECCM greater than the ECM of the decoys, the number of decoys used in the calculation will be reduced by 1 for each point of difference.
If that sounds like a huge boost for missiles, it is. However, I will also be adding ship-deployed decoys as well to distract missiles. These will be much larger and more costly, but will affect all missiles heading for the ship, probably with similar mechanics. That will have the greatest impact on very large missile waves. I am hoping to create a situation where larger, smarter and higher tech missiles may have a better chance of inflicting damage than a swarm of small missiles. These will be a huge change so I will be doing a lot of playtesting and tweaking once the changes are done probably via a campaign with multiple player races.
I've updated the last changes post to reflect the first paragraph above.
-
"When an Active Sensor is trying to detect a target or a Missile Fire Control is attempting to lock on to a target equipped with a Sensor Jammer, the ECCM strength of the Active Sensor or Fire Control is deducted from the Sensor Jammer Strength of the target. The result is known as the ECM Penalty and cannot be less than zero. The range of the Missile Fire Control will be reduced by 20% * ECM Penalty."
The last sentence here only mentions the range of Missile Fire Controls being reduced, but it also reduces the range of Active Sensors, right?
Also, the reduced range is only applied when the sensor is specifically targetting the ship that has the jammer, right? So if you have a fleet of two identical ships, except one has a jammer, the sensor might detected the one ship and not the one with the jammer?
-
"When an Active Sensor is trying to detect a target or a Missile Fire Control is attempting to lock on to a target equipped with a Sensor Jammer, the ECCM strength of the Active Sensor or Fire Control is deducted from the Sensor Jammer Strength of the target. The result is known as the ECM Penalty and cannot be less than zero. The range of the Missile Fire Control will be reduced by 20% * ECM Penalty."
The last sentence here only mentions the range of Missile Fire Controls being reduced, but it also reduces the range of Active Sensors, right?
Also, the reduced range is only applied when the sensor is specifically targetting the ship that has the jammer, right? So if you have a fleet of two identical ships, except one has a jammer, the sensor might detected the one ship and not the one with the jammer?
Yes, to both. I considered area jamming, but thought it would be too powerful. I also considered allowing the jamming to be turned on and off and to have EM emissions associated with that jamming, but it leads to a lot of unnecessary complexity (what if jammers are turned on with missiles in flight and the ship now outside range of the sensors and fire controls). Fine in a multi-player game, but would be tricky for the AI to avoid those situations.
-
...Big EWar update...
I love the direction you're going, but yeah, these are big changes that will take a lot of balancing. Just when I was hoping to play a new version!! Lol.
Does the Sensor jammer increase EM emissions? (Trading reduced active detection / lock range for greater passive detection range)? If so, can it be toggled on and off? Or is it a straight stealth boost?
I will definitely want to have the option of compact versions.
If the missile is hit, will it's decoys go poof? You say the decoys will be abstracted to deploy at an appropriate time, does this mean that a decoy bus mixed in with the salvo, even if unluckily killed early, could still potentially have decoys flying along with the salvo, further distracting PD? This would probably require tracking the decoys independently after all, but could allow for tactics involving changing salvo composition during battle.
I love the ship decoy idea as well. A new system? Something fired out of a missle launcher tube? Expendable decoys vs a rechargable system of some kind? Maybe a bit of both in that it requires Maintenance Supply to reload?
Ideally the Defensive fire controls will not add missiles tracking to engage the decoys, to the list of missiles being allocated PD shots. Would this be binary, or have some degree of uncertainty?
Man this is getting so many ideas going!
-
...Big EWar update...
I love the direction you're going, but yeah, these are big changes that will take a lot of balancing. Just when I was hoping to play a new version!! Lol.
Does the Sensor jammer increase EM emissions? (Trading reduced active detection / lock range for greater passive detection range)? If so, can it be toggled on and off? Or is it a straight stealth boost?
Read my post just above yours :)
I will definitely want to have the option of compact versions.
If the missile is hit, will it's decoys go poof? You say the decoys will be abstracted to deploy at an appropriate time, does this mean that a decoy bus mixed in with the salvo, even if unluckily killed early, could still potentially have decoys flying along with the salvo, further distracting PD? This would probably require tracking the decoys independently after all, but could allow for tactics involving changing salvo composition during battle.
I love the ship decoy idea as well. A new system? Something fired out of a missle launcher tube? Expendable decoys vs a rechargable system of some kind? Maybe a bit of both in that it requires Maintenance Supply to reload?
Ideally the Defensive fire controls will not add missiles tracking to engage the decoys, to the list of missiles being allocated PD shots. Would this be binary, or have some degree of uncertainty?
Man this is getting so many ideas going!
Yes, decoys will vanish when the missile does. Ship decoy may be a very large missile that follows the parent ship, as that is easiest with current mechanics, or maybe a new onboard system with a fixed number of reloads.
In terms of decoy mechanics, every shot in the same increment will be resolved with all the decoys in play. I will track which decoy is hit by which shot and then remove any decoys with at least one hit at the end of the phase. If the parent ship or missile is destroyed, all associated decoys will be lost.
-
Just when I was hoping to play a new version!! Lol.
Yeah it is like, I can start a new game, there is plenty of time before new version, but then how can I play without all these new shiny things. :D
-
Given the nature of these changes (there are no compact versions yet), I will probably replace the ubiquitous ECM component from missiles (ECCM will remain) with a new line of decoys with ECM tech built in - probably 0.25 MSP for the controller and maybe 0.5 MSP to 1 MSP each for the decoys. Rather than track these independently, the mechanics will assume they are deployed at an appropriate time. When the missile is attacked by PD or AMM, the chance of hitting the actual missile will 1 / (1 + Decoys). If a decoy is hit, it will noted as such in the combat log and removed for future checks. If the attacking missile or fire control has ECCM greater than the ECM of the decoys, the number of decoys used in the calculation will be reduced by 1 for each point of difference.
So would these decoys be loaded on the missile/ship and all be simultaneously spent on the first shot that is incoming (all decoys being discarded no matter if they have been hit or not), or would the surviving decoys be essentially loaded back into the missile/ship after that shot has impacted, so that the surviving decoys would be used again for the next time a shot is incoming?
-
I think the ship decoys affecting large swarms disproportionately might finally resolve the whole AMM spam issue that people kept talking about.
It also means that large missiles have a way to actually hit high ECM ships by just bolting on more decoys.
I do see that we have the same problem when it comes to overpowering ECM though. It seems (I could have misunderstood) that if you have a 5 level ECM advantage over the enemy that you will become virtually immune to getting hit. I think that massive ECM advantage should be a big deal, but maybe not literally impossible to hit levels of big deal.
-
I do see that we have the same problem when it comes to overpowering ECM though. It seems (I could have misunderstood) that if you have a 5 level ECM advantage over the enemy that you will become virtually immune to getting hit. I think that massive ECM advantage should be a big deal, but maybe not literally impossible to hit levels of big deal.
At least you will now need two separate ECM technologies both at 5 level advantage (one for beam weapons and one for missiles) in order to become impenetrable though. The research difference between the two civs would probably have to be quite big for that to happen.
-
I do see that we have the same problem when it comes to overpowering ECM though. It seems (I could have misunderstood) that if you have a 5 level ECM advantage over the enemy that you will become virtually immune to getting hit. I think that massive ECM advantage should be a big deal, but maybe not literally impossible to hit levels of big deal.
At least you will now need two separate ECM technologies both at 5 level advantage (one for beam weapons and one for missiles) in order to become impenetrable though. The research difference between the two civs would probably have to be quite big for that to happen.
Its a matter of preference but I really like when an overwhelming tech advantage is well overwhelming. In a fight between 100-gun man-of-war and a near future railgun, laser and particle beam equiped 5foot thick super-composite armor belt equipped battleship I would hope the later would be essentially unbeatable.
-
What if one of the cannonballs from the Man of War scores a direct hit and into the thermal exhaust port of the future Battleship?
"Don"t be too proud of this technological terror you"ve constructed"
-
Read my post just above yours :)
OK, I've read it. It reads to me like an always-on stealth boost, with no EM emissions.
If that's correct, I'd have to say I'd prefer it had EM emissions, but I can see how it would lead to cheesing the AI.
Yes, decoys will vanish when the missile does. Ship decoy may be a very large missile that follows the parent ship, as that is easiest with current mechanics, or maybe a new onboard system with a fixed number of reloads.
In terms of decoy mechanics, every shot in the same increment will be resolved with all the decoys in play. I will track which decoy is hit by which shot and then remove any decoys with at least one hit at the end of the phase. If the parent ship or missile is destroyed, all associated decoys will be lost.
OK, so missile decoys last to the end of that phase, distracting PD from other missiles in the salvo even if the decoy-launching missile is destroyed. But if the salvo continues on to be shot at again, then in the next phase targeting the salvo the decoys will be gone. That's a good middle ground I think.
Will the decoys have a variable, or a fixed size? For missile decoys I'd be happy to gloss over it and accept a fixed size, but decoys that work for a fighter probably shouldn't be just as effective as for a superdreadnought.
I didn't see mention of ECCM for missiles in the ECCM update. Unless I missed something? Does this mean missile ECCM keeps the old mechanics, or missile ECCM is removed?
-
I didn't see mention of ECCM for missiles in the ECCM update. Unless I missed something? Does this mean missile ECCM keeps the old mechanics, or missile ECCM is removed?
In Steve's post today, he mentioned:
Only Ships can have EW systems in the above form. Missiles will gain a new system to be detailed in a future post. Active Sensors, Missile Fire Controls, Beam Fire Controls, CIWS, STO Weapons and Missiles can have ECCM.So I assume there will be changes to E-war systems on missiles in upcoming change notes.
-
I do see that we have the same problem when it comes to overpowering ECM though. It seems (I could have misunderstood) that if you have a 5 level ECM advantage over the enemy that you will become virtually immune to getting hit. I think that massive ECM advantage should be a big deal, but maybe not literally impossible to hit levels of big deal.
At least you will now need two separate ECM technologies both at 5 level advantage (one for beam weapons and one for missiles) in order to become impenetrable though. The research difference between the two civs would probably have to be quite big for that to happen.
Its a matter of preference but I really like when an overwhelming tech advantage is well overwhelming. In a fight between 100-gun man-of-war and a near future railgun, laser and particle beam equiped 5foot thick super-composite armor belt equipped battleship I would hope the later would be essentially unbeatable.
That is fair but remember that we aren't talking about getting destroyed, we are talking about getting hit at all. I wouldn't mind if there was something like a minimum 1% modifier to hit due to EW advantage. Chances are, such a tech gap also means strong shields/armor relative to enemy weapon strength so it'd be nice to have a single fleeting sign of resistance.
-
Honestly this is a rather strange implementation of "jamming". I agree with some who have said there should be some sort of emissions increase for jamming, and there should probably be other mechanics involved like burnthrough defeating jamming and ghost contacts appearing in various directions and ranges while being jammed.
Generally the downside to jamming is: "they're now very aware that you're coming". Having it just be a tech that affects only hit chance places it in a different place than just pure soak (armor / shields), but it could stand out a bit more on its own. I'm rather strangely knowledgeable about EWar and jamming for various reasons, so I could throw some suggestions up perhaps.
Also what exactly does sensor jamming do? Reduce range of missile fire controls and active sensors? The description only mentions missile fire controls.
Anyway my basic suggestion is:
-Jamming doesn't affect range but rather makes sensors completely useless while affected. The result is you know the enemy is there and have a vague idea of where they're coming from but that's it. You can't target at all. (Note the classic implementation in games of jamming affecting an "arc" is not technically the only way you can jam. Because of technicalities of how radar works, angular jamming is possible as well, where you trick a radar into thinking contacts are coming from other directions. In Aurora of course there's as much latitude as Steve desires with technicalities of active sensors, but it's an idea)
-After closing to a certain range, as dictated by a comparison between the strength of the jammer (yes they should probably be components), and the strength of the active sensors, and relative tech of sensor jamming ecm vs active sensor eccm the active sensor achieves "burnthrough" and can filter out the jamming noise.
I actually rather like the implementation of the beam / missile jamming, a simple to hit works as a good abstraction there (and they don't need to be individual components), but for the more general "sensor jamming", disabling detection and showing an "arc" instead until the burnthrough criteria are met would be an interesting way to represent the intricacies of ewar better, imo.
-
I agree with some who have said there should be some sort of emissions increase for jamming,
[...]
Generally the downside to jamming is: "they're now very aware that you're coming".
I tend to agree. I think it would be fine if sensor jammers worked like shields, with an on/off toggle and greatly boosted EM signature when on
Anyway my basic suggestion is:
I suspect one of the major reasons for the implementation Steve has given is that it works with the existing "contacts" mechanic in Aurora - the current system does not have any way to represent "the enemy is approximately here..." and I think implementing anything like that would be a lot more work than Steve wants to do for not all that much in terms of gameplay interest (where "realistic" =/= "good gameplay"). I think the simplistic idea Steve has presented is reasonable especially if a large EM signature is emitted which would be sufficient to detect the ship generally and represent the "they're now very aware that you're coming" effect while preventing targeting.
-
I suspect one of the major reasons for the implementation Steve has given is that it works with the existing "contacts" mechanic in Aurora - the current system does not have any way to represent "the enemy is approximately here..." and I think implementing anything like that would be a lot more work than Steve wants to do for not all that much in terms of gameplay interest (where "realistic" =/= "good gameplay"). I think the simplistic idea Steve has presented is reasonable especially if a large EM signature is emitted which would be sufficient to detect the ship generally and represent the "they're now very aware that you're coming" effect while preventing targeting.
Agreed with what seems to be the motivation behind the design decision. I don't know what the answer to this scenario is though:
An AI fires missiles at you from maximum range, and you _then_ turn on your sensor jammer, putting your fleet outside of active sensor and MFC range of the fleet that just fired on you. Those hostile missiles now have no active contact to seek onto. The current rules have those missiles self destruct at this point. 100% anti-missile kill rate, if you can keep the range open, until their magazines are dry, then sail in close for the kill.
This leads to always-on being simpler to solve - game design-wise. But if it's always-on, then that's a constant annoying EM emission. So therefore no EM signature.
I don't say I like it, but the missile cheese scenario I describe above needs to be solved to unpick this chain of effects.
A solution could be simply that missiles continue to the location of the last known active contact, and _then_ self destruct. So could steering onto passive contacts (but still requiring an active sensor fix from either the launching MFC, or an onboard sensor, to actually execute an attack).
Both of these would allow time to re-acquire the contact. Personally I already wish we could fire on passive tracks for other, unrelated reasons, but whatever the solution, it's more coding for Steve to do..
-
Seeing as there are lots of changes to missiles flying around, here's an idea from me (inspired by the Nebulous hybrid missiles):
A component that allows some of the sensors, ECM, targeting etc to be shared between stages of multi-stage missiles. Specifically from a sub-stage to a host stage.
E.g. A 2-stage homing missile with a sensor to guide itself, that is on internal guidance during the first stage's flight, would need another, second sensor in the second stage. What about a component, say 0.5 MSP, that allows the 1st stage to home from the 2nd stage's sensor?
Probably a pain to code, but another way to create more trade-offs for larger missiles.
-
Agreed with what seems to be the motivation behind the design decision. I don't know what the answer to this scenario is though:
An AI fires missiles at you from maximum range, and you _then_ turn on your sensor jammer, putting your fleet outside of active sensor and MFC range of the fleet that just fired on you. Those hostile missiles now have no active contact to seek onto. The current rules have those missiles self destruct at this point. 100% anti-missile kill rate, if you can keep the range open, until their magazines are dry, then sail in close for the kill.
If the ECM module otherwise functions as the current one, it cannot be turned off.
-
I suspect one of the major reasons for the implementation Steve has given is that it works with the existing "contacts" mechanic in Aurora - the current system does not have any way to represent "the enemy is approximately here..." and I think implementing anything like that would be a lot more work than Steve wants to do for not all that much in terms of gameplay interest (where "realistic" =/= "good gameplay"). I think the simplistic idea Steve has presented is reasonable especially if a large EM signature is emitted which would be sufficient to detect the ship generally and represent the "they're now very aware that you're coming" effect while preventing targeting.
Agreed with what seems to be the motivation behind the design decision. I don't know what the answer to this scenario is though:
An AI fires missiles at you from maximum range, and you _then_ turn on your sensor jammer, putting your fleet outside of active sensor and MFC range of the fleet that just fired on you. Those hostile missiles now have no active contact to seek onto. The current rules have those missiles self destruct at this point. 100% anti-missile kill rate, if you can keep the range open, until their magazines are dry, then sail in close for the kill.
This leads to always-on being simpler to solve - game design-wise. But if it's always-on, then that's a constant annoying EM emission. So therefore no EM signature.
I don't say I like it, but the missile cheese scenario I describe above needs to be solved to unpick this chain of effects.
A solution could be simply that missiles continue to the location of the last known active contact, and _then_ self destruct. So could steering onto passive contacts (but still requiring an active sensor fix from either the launching MFC, or an onboard sensor, to actually execute an attack).
Both of these would allow time to re-acquire the contact. Personally I already wish we could fire on passive tracks for other, unrelated reasons, but whatever the solution, it's more coding for Steve to do..
Yeah I totally get realism ! = gameplay, just that I've always loved elegant abstractions of real world stuff in wargames. As far how deep down the E war rabbit hole Steve wants to go, that's up to him of course, I'm just spit balling. It's an incredibly advanced subject though that can be as simple as "less range" or turn into a psuedo modern-naval combat simulation on the other end of the spectrum.
As for jamming having missiles die 100% of the time, I forgot to mention the other aspect of jamming that's bad: you're blasting everything with EM radiation and making the jammer a huge target. Typically the "counters" to jamming are either burnthrough or anti radiation missiles. If you go that route I don't know if you want to make that yet another missile component or some "default" behavior of missiles, but essentially in that scenario you would have all the missiles chasing the now-massive signature of the jammer.
As I said there's a million routes to this, which is why I always love E war implementations in games, since they always tend to be different.
Maybe a combination of "last known position" for all missiles with a more complex component / missile size addition of an anti radar module that is able to track on active jammers and active sensors even without a fire control link: they're just chasing the radiation.
Although consistency-wise this opens a rabbit hole of scenarios with passive homing missiles (think sidewinder) if anti-radar are allowed. I'm not sure what the stance on those are (heat seeking, etc.) but it's more complexity and work to do.
-
Yeah I totally get realism ! = gameplay, just that I've always loved elegant abstractions of real world stuff in wargames. As far how deep down the E war rabbit hole Steve wants to go, that's up to him of course, I'm just spit balling. It's an incredibly advanced subject though that can be as simple as "less range" or turn into a psuedo modern-naval combat simulation on the other end of the spectrum.
As for jamming having missiles die 100% of the time, I forgot to mention the other aspect of jamming that's bad: you're blasting everything with EM radiation and making the jammer a huge target. Typically the "counters" to jamming are either burnthrough or anti radiation missiles. If you go that route I don't know if you want to make that yet another missile component or some "default" behavior of missiles, but essentially in that scenario you would have all the missiles chasing the now-massive signature of the jammer.
As I said there's a million routes to this, which is why I always love E war implementations in games, since they always tend to be different.
Maybe a combination of "last known position" for all missiles with a more complex component / missile size addition of an anti radar module that is able to track on active jammers and active sensors even without a fire control link: they're just chasing the radiation.
Although consistency-wise this opens a rabbit hole of scenarios with passive homing missiles (think sidewinder) if anti-radar are allowed. I'm not sure what the stance on those are (heat seeking, etc.) but it's more complexity and work to do.
Yeah I'm mainly just throwing ideas into the mix as I come up with them, and will wait and see what Steve ends up putting in.
FWIW, I thinking adding HOJ etc is going too far down that rabbit hole for this game, but having missiles continue in the hopes of re-aquiring seems straightforward enough. It directly ties to another requested feature - firing homing missiles on passive contacts, so could be a 2 for 1.
-
If the ECM module otherwise functions as the current one, it cannot be turned off.
Yeah roger. I'm talking through the difficulty introduced if turning it on and off were allowed.
-
Is it just me, or does it seem like shields are getting a number of indirect buffs from this patch?
More "leaky" PD because of system changes as well laser warheads is one thing, but another is big alpha strikes from ships bristling with many of the now smaller, high damage particle lances. I know Aurora's goal isn't to be perfectly balanced like some multiplayer game, but it does make me a little concerned for the NPRs.
On that note, do current NPR designs ever use shields at all? I have played quite a bit but can't recall ever seeing them.
-
On that note, do current NPR designs ever use shields at all? I have played quite a bit but can't recall ever seeing them.
NPRs use shields but it's very rare, I've seen it only once.
-
Is it just me, or does it seem like shields are getting a number of indirect buffs from this patch?
More "leaky" PD because of system changes as well laser warheads is one thing, but another is big alpha strikes from ships bristling with many of the now smaller, high damage particle lances. I know Aurora's goal isn't to be perfectly balanced like some multiplayer game, but it does make me a little concerned for the NPRs.
On that note, do current NPR designs ever use shields at all? I have played quite a bit but can't recall ever seeing them.
This is hard to predict. Shields are actually pretty bad against big alpha strikes due to their moderate HP/tonnage. Using them against a minor but sontant barrage is something completely different. They do reduce the effect of high penetration beam weapons against shields significantly as well, but these tend to be pretty weak against shields. The damage per increment per ton of stuff like spinal lasers or particle lances is still not stellar and at range with many shots missing, shields will remain important. Against smaller caliber and high dpm weapons or at shorter range shields will still be of minor use.
-
I also thin it would be more fun if jamming actually was jamming and not some way to masking you like stealth, that is something very different. It also would make throwing all eggs in one basket type of attacks become dangerous as you might get jammed and waste an entire salvo of missiles.
If it can be solved with how they AI operates in the game then I like for jamming to be an of/off thing that also emit EM signals. You also could fit missiles with EM sensors to hit jamming sources too.
If we then had the ability to lock on to either EM and Thermal sources and hit them we would walk around in the circle and be back the first step again. An EM sensor missile should then have a chance to intercept any jamming ships. If these sensors are expensive enough you can't equip them to just every missile.
This would then make missile combat more realistic and in my opinion fun... but I do understand that the AI probably would suffer here.
-
So does the new carronade change mean that we can have reduced-size carronades? ;D
-
So does the new carronade change mean that we can have reduced-size carronades? ;D
They are half size to begin with, so plasma bombers are a go. We can even put small carronades on fighters, without the need of reduced size tech. I worked in VB6 after all. But I bet the one thing that makes reduced-size so unappealing stays in the game. The painfully slow reload.
-
Sounds like I've missed discussion on a lot of fun changes!
If this sounds like a huge boost for missiles, it is. However, I also plan on adding some form of ship-deployed decoy to distract missiles, which will be much larger and more costly, but will affect all missiles heading for the parent ship. I may also add a form of fragmentation warhead to missiles, that would be ineffective against ships but able to eliminate decoys and small missiles.
It took me some time to fully wrap my head around this change, since I mentally wanted to handle it like the old ECM vs ECCM system, where having ECCM 3 countered ECM 3. But it's worded as a reduction if the ship has an ECCM advantage, which means equal levels do *not* counter each other out. What's more, even if the ship does have an ECCM advantage reducing the number of decoys by 1 does not necessarily negate *all* decoys. So yeah, that seems like a pretty powerful change. I think we might be approaching the era of big honking anti-ship missiles with tricked out subsystems (I'm not opposed to this).
I know you mention decoys for ships (it would be interesting to me if the size of ship decoys was proportional to the ship size, cloaking device style, which might give a little more role for anti-missile escort ships), and after thinking about it that's probably important to provide a ship-side version of the new EW mechanics. But I was also thinking if testing shows this change favors missiles too much, the recent addition of partial warhead damage means you could also do something similar for dedicated ship based point defense weapons - a 6 cm anti-missile laser doing .5 damage and such.
-
So, do carronades keep their damage profile or not?
I'm assuming their size goes up to match lasers too?
Damage profile post (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107125#msg107125)
-
I am hoping to create a situation where larger, smarter and higher tech missiles may have a better chance of inflicting damage than a swarm of small missiles. This will be a huge change so I will be doing a lot of playtesting and tweaking once all the changes are completed, possibly via a campaign with multiple player races.
I always look forward to multiple player race campaigns. I don't think you have done one of those since the VB6 days. I think many of us who have played multi player race games have noticed the C# version has inferior tools to help manage several races that require complicated DB editing compared to the VB6 version that could do many of those things with SM mode. I know I would personally enjoy the ability to trade minerals, wealth and buildings without needing to DB edit, either through SM mode or through the diplomacy window.
All that aside, I'm really looking forward to the missile changes, this seems like a very good direction to take missiles to make them more interesting.
-
So, do carronades keep their damage profile or not?
I'm assuming their size goes up to match lasers too?
Damage profile post (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107125#msg107125)
Good spot. They still have the original damage profile. I've updated the post.
-
I know you mention decoys for ships (it would be interesting to me if the size of ship decoys was proportional to the ship size, cloaking device style, which might give a little more role for anti-missile escort ships), and after thinking about it that's probably important to provide a ship-side version of the new EW mechanics. But I was also thinking if testing shows this change favors missiles too much, the recent addition of partial warhead damage means you could also do something similar for dedicated ship based point defense weapons - a 6 cm anti-missile laser doing .5 damage and such.
Yes, that's an interesting idea. An energy weapon that can't penetrate ship armour but could damage missiles.
-
So does the new carronade change mean that we can have reduced-size carronades? ;D
No, as they are half size already :)
However, after considering it overnight I see no reason they can't have a spinal version, so I have added that to the post.
-
So does the new carronade change mean that we can have reduced-size carronades? ;D
No, as they are half size already :)
However, after considering it overnight I see no reason they can't have a spinal version, so I have added that to the post.
Does the half size half cost now also mean that carronades are even cheaper to increase your ground unit weapons strength as it is based on the focal strength?
This always was sort of a weird interaction with ground force unit offensive values.
Personally I think that ground unit weapons and armour strength should have their own tech lines. It is generally fine when they interact with armour as you really need that technology but weapon techs have quite varied costs and sort of incentivise you to focus on one type and certainly push you toward Carronades to get an early good weapon penetration value on your ground forces.
-
Considering almost every weapon seems to have gotten a sort of rework this update, are you considering something for railguns, microwaves, mesons, too?
-
I do not think sub 1 damage beam weapons would do too well, as they would have a significantly lower range than the higher range versions. That would make them completely useless against missiles with a laser warhead.
Considering almost every weapon seems to have gotten a sort of rework this update, are you considering something for railguns, microwaves, mesons, too?
I am hoping for a few larger caliber techs so that you do end up with the same racial ground attack values regardless of the beam weapon tech you choose. That would mean higher damage for railguns. What would you do about the other two? They are very niche, as one is sort of an EWAR weapon that fries sensors and fire controls for good. The other is kind of irrelevant as it does not ignore armor well enough or cause enough damage to be valid for me. Mesons were problematic though, as they were quite formidable as a secondary battery in VB6 ignoring all defenses. Maybe it could have an increased rate of fire like gauss canons.
What I would love to see is the option to mount all guns except spinals and lances into turrets when it comes to using them as STOs.
-
Does the half size half cost now also mean that carronades are even cheaper to increase your ground unit weapons strength as it is based on the focal strength?
This always was sort of a weird interaction with ground force unit offensive values.
Personally I think that ground unit weapons and armour strength should have their own tech lines. It is generally fine when they interact with armour as you really need that technology but weapon techs have quite varied costs and sort of incentivise you to focus on one type and certainly push you toward Carronades to get an early good weapon penetration value on your ground forces.
I like that Carronades give you an option to invest in your ground force strength more cheaply than by researching heavier beam weapons. Gives a niche to the carronade tech line that they're otherwise missing. Plasma weapons are great on the ground, but kinda crummy in space.
-
So does the new carronade change mean that we can have reduced-size carronades? ;D
No, as they are half size already :)
However, after considering it overnight I see no reason they can't have a spinal version, so I have added that to the post.
Does the half size half cost now also mean that carronades are even cheaper to increase your ground unit weapons strength as it is based on the focal strength?
This always was sort of a weird interaction with ground force unit offensive values.
Personally I think that ground unit weapons and armour strength should have their own tech lines. It is generally fine when they interact with armour as you really need that technology but weapon techs have quite varied costs and sort of incentivise you to focus on one type and certainly push you toward Carronades to get an early good weapon penetration value on your ground forces.
It is now more expensive to use carranodes as cheap ground forces tech, because their research costs have increased.
-
I do not think sub 1 damage beam weapons would all too well, as they would have a significantly lower range than the higher range versions. That would make them completely useless against missiles with a laser warhead.
Considering almost every weapon seems to have gotten a sort of rework this update, are you considering something for railguns, microwaves, mesons, too?
I am hoping for a few larger caliber techs so that you do end up with the same racial ground attack values regardless of the beam weapon tech you choose. That would mean higher damage for railguns. What would you do about the other two? They are very niche, as one is sort of an EWAR weapon that fries sensors and fire controls for good. The other is kind of irrelevant as it does not ignore armor well enough or cause enough damage to be valid for me. Mesons were problematic though, as they were quite formidable as a secondary battery in VB6 ignoring all defenses. Maybe it could have an increased rate of fire like gauss canons.
What I would love to see is the option to mount all guns except spinals and lances into turrets when it comes to using them as STOs.
If I did create energy weapons with less than 1 point of damage, they would only be viable as point-blank point defence weapons.
I won't be adding other weapons to turrets as no one would use anything except railguns.
I will do something with mesons at some point, but I am not in any rush. In Traveller (the source of the original meson mechanics), they are very large and often buried underground for planetary defence. One option might be to give them something close to the old mechanics, but make them very large and give them some defensive bonus when located on planets. That would make planets a very dangerous place for large ships to approach, so it might encourage more skirmish battles to take out planetary defences rather than just moving in with large, shield-protected battleships.
-
What if one of the cannonballs from the Man of War scores a direct hit and into the thermal exhaust port of the future Battleship?
"Don"t be too proud of this technological terror you"ve constructed"
The ship is down an exhaust port then xD
Also I really like how the missile and PD changes are looking, even if I don't really get the PD changes fully.
-
One thing I like about this last batch of changes is it seems easier now to protect lone ships against missile spam, specifically precursor spam. Like, point defense used to be a "commit to it" or else type deal, now it seems if you up-armor your survey ships just a bit, and give em decoys and some basic ECM missile jamming, they have a somewhat significant chance of not always being shredded by AMMs. Would it be optimal to protect them at all? Not sure, but it's certainly a nice RP thing if you want to look after your troops. That and it seems a lot of players measure utility in a hard cost / tonnage vs damage / protection metric where there's other softer metrics that can mean more, like not having to keep retool a shipyard if you lose a bunch of survey ships, for example. (Or if you follow Steve's "contact" house rules, which I do, it means you get to know right away that there's a hostile presence in a system rather than having to wait for another ship to stumble into the region).
"
-
If ship decoys work similar to missile decoys in that they can absorb an infinite number of missiles in a single increment, then are gone forever, it's also a nice counter to mass box launcher salvos. It might even be worth it to use high rate of fire launchers and spread your targeting to different ships, which were always bad tactics before.
It might take some time to get the balance right but I'm excited for what sounds like a whole new combat meta in the new version.
-
--- 2.2 seems to be turning into 3.0
-
Quick question steve to what extent will NPRs/AI use these changes specifically regarding missiles, am concerned they wont and this will significantly reduce the usefulness of the changes, furthermore Id love to see changes to the AI ship templates perhaps people can submit ship templates on the forum for you to grab, maybe even a difficulty option to use harder ship templates, improvements to the AI using more of the changes of C# i feel should be looked into.
-
Quick question steve to what extent will NPRs/AI use these changes specifically regarding missiles, am concerned they wont and this will significantly reduce the usefulness of the changes, furthermore Id love to see changes to the AI ship templates perhaps people can submit ship templates on the forum for you to grab, maybe even a difficulty option to use harder ship templates, improvements to the AI using more of the changes of C# i feel should be looked into.
I've always really liked the idea of moddable/user submitted AI design "styles", though I realize it's probably more complicated than it sounds since the AI itself would have to understand how to use the ships properly. So you couldn't just toss in a design for a cloaked missile ship or railgun fighter based point defense fleet and expect the AI to actually know how to use them.
That said, Aurora tends to have some pretty dedicated fans so I suspect even if it was moddable ship design templates with no AI changes we'd get some creative solutions that worked with the current AI.
-
Quick question steve to what extent will NPRs/AI use these changes specifically regarding missiles, am concerned they wont and this will significantly reduce the usefulness of the changes, furthermore Id love to see changes to the AI ship templates perhaps people can submit ship templates on the forum for you to grab, maybe even a difficulty option to use harder ship templates, improvements to the AI using more of the changes of C# i feel should be looked into.
The new missile changes have already been added to the new NPR missile design AI.
There isn't really such a thing as ship templates for NPRs. There is a table for automated designs in the DB but they need code as well.
Also, please don't change the titles of threads like this one, or the other main threads such as suggestions. I've changed it back with this post.
-
--- 2.2 seems to be turning into 3.0
Don't give Steve any ideas!! :o
-
I also thin it would be more fun if jamming actually was jamming and not some way to masking you like stealth, that is something very different. It also would make throwing all eggs in one basket type of attacks become dangerous as you might get jammed and waste an entire salvo of missiles.
If it can be solved with how they AI operates in the game then I like for jamming to be an of/off thing that also emit EM signals. You also could fit missiles with EM sensors to hit jamming sources too.
If we then had the ability to lock on to either EM and Thermal sources and hit them we would walk around in the circle and be back the first step again. An EM sensor missile should then have a chance to intercept any jamming ships. If these sensors are expensive enough you can't equip them to just every missile.
This would then make missile combat more realistic and in my opinion fun. . . but I do understand that the AI probably would suffer here.
I mean you can already design a missile with an EM sensor that would go after any shield ships or anything with an active sensor array. All you would need to do is add code that means that having a jammer on means generating an EM signature. That said, I think there's something to be said about making things a bit. . . too complicated? Because IRL, you would then start working on tech like Home on Jam or Electro-optical guidance, or wake homing.
I think however that It should be considered whether these decoys will actually destroy the missiles or if missiles with either retargeting systems and/or local terminal guidance (EM/TH) Might be able to search for a new target after missing, though they would need to wait until the next time increment to attempt their reattack, meaning that the decoys aren't perfect but will allow you to divert any missiles that fall for it long enough for guns to recharge. If nothing else, ship based decoys should require a sizable usage of MSP, or require something in order to avoid them being infinite. There is after all a real risk of people just ignoring including PD and stacking ship decoys and shields to deal with missiles after all. And let's not forget there are cases of friendly fire happening due to CIWS firing at chaff clouds released by friendly ships.
-
--- 2.2 seems to be turning into 3.0
Don't give Steve any ideas!! :o
Yeah, I'm super conflicted. On one hand, stoked about the announced changes, excited by the pace of changes right now, also really gutted it's now probably going to be ages to be able to play all the new features ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Yeah, I'm super conflicted. On one hand, stoked about the announced changes, excited by the pace of changes right now, also really gutted it's now probably going to be ages to be able to play all the new features ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If Steve playtests the missile + PD + EW changes and releases, I'll be very happy with that as it will provide a lot of material for the 2.2 campaign I want to play. That's worth the wait, I just don't want to wait any longer! :P
-
I'm mainly waiting because of the ground force QOL changes. That's what made me decide not to start a 2.1 save, that and I need to figure out how to get the game running on my new linux rig.
-
Heya Steve,
Really enjoying v2. 1. 1 version of Aurora and v2. 2 looks great with all the changes you've been making.
I saw that Plasma Carronades are getting Spinal Mounts.
Is there a reason why Railguns don't have them? I'm really craving my MACs, lol.
Many thanks :)
-
Heya Steve,
Really enjoying v2. 1. 1 version of Aurora and v2. 2 looks great with all the changes you've been making.
I saw that Plasma Carronades are getting Spinal Mounts.
Is there a reason why Railguns don't have them? I'm really craving my MACs, lol.
Many thanks :)
Mainly because I haven't found a way to implement them that I really like. I considered similar to lasers with spinal just allowing a larger mount, or maybe more shots, but I would prefer to have something with more variety, but that doesn't overpower railguns.
-
What about a change in damage pattern, the velocity of a spinal railgun allows it to have more like a laser damage profile and punch through armour easier and it does more damage, so its useful to break through armour and or snipe, particle lance is similar to this I guess but yea the whole spinal railgun situation is basically how do you get the Halo spinal railguns that are distinctive and work ingame.
-
I like the Warhead factor being added. It is close to making an AOE and gives some credence to making larger AMM's and also giving some variety to strike packages. Throwing in a couple of "Frag Missiles" against ships in order to take out their potential decoys to give a follow up salvo a better chance of a hitting the actual ship target(s) both "feels" right as well as gives some interesting tactical consideration for missile warfare in general, putting an emphasis on multiple salvos versus just pure alpha strike potential.
On the Ranged Final Fire PD option, as I've stated elsewhere there should be no way to know what type of warheads an opponent is using, and thus having them fire "just before the warheads go off" does not make any real sense. However, one would know what one's own capabilities are, and thus having one's PD Ranged Final Fire engagement range to be tied to the Laser Warhead Range technology would make perfect sense. This will give a short term boost to the one's who advance the technology first, while creating the realistic offense v defense "arms race" which has always occured.
Laser Warhead Range should MAX at 1 light second or 300k if we are going to round, the BFC's to align to a target in a small package like a missile simply do not have the computation power to predict any further than that. We do not need missiles with fully functional (ranged) lasers on them at all.
-
"The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead."
So is there a single roll to hit and if successful then all the fragmentation attacks automatically hit, or do the individual fragments still have to roll for their own hits?
-
"The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead."
So is there a single roll to hit and if successful then all the fragmentation attacks automatically hit, or do the individual fragments still have to roll for their own hits?
There is a single chance to hit calculation, but a separate to-hit roll for each warhead. The idea is to maximise the chances of hitting the target at least once.
-
On the Ranged Final Fire PD option, as I've stated elsewhere there should be no way to know what type of warheads an opponent is using, and thus having them fire "just before the warheads go off" does not make any real sense.
In absolute terms it doesn't. However, as I explained in the original post, I could create tactical intelligence for missiles in the same way as ships, sensors, weapons, etc. so once a laser warhead is detonated, you could identify the missile type and plan to target that missile type in future at the correct range. However, as a counter, everyone would then start regularly designing slightly different missiles to get disrupt that process. Even then that would only work for the first time the new missile was used. The rest of the time the PD would fire at the right time.
So I decided to skip all that extra coding from me and micromanagement from the player and assume it all happened in the background, which ultimately results in PD knowing when to fire. Gameplay in this case is more important than a small realism gain that is outweighed by a lot tedium all round.
-
"The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead."
So is there a single roll to hit and if successful then all the fragmentation attacks automatically hit, or do the individual fragments still have to roll for their own hits?
There is a single chance to hit calculation, but a separate to-hit roll for each warhead. The idea is to maximise the chances of hitting the target at least once.
Does that mean if you have a missile with 1 warhead and Missile Retargeting Capability, then you're guaranteed to get a hit (eventually, ignoring PD), but if you're using a multi warhead missile with Retargeting Capability, then you're not actually guaranteed a hit, because the fragments have separate to-hit rolls?
-
In absolute terms it doesn't. However, as I explained in the original post, I could create tactical intelligence for missiles in the same way as ships, sensors, weapons, etc. so once a laser warhead is detonated, you could identify the missile type and plan to target that missile type in future at the correct range. However, as a counter, everyone would then start regularly designing slightly different missiles to get disrupt that process. Even then that would only work for the first time the new missile was used. The rest of the time the PD would fire at the right time.
I think his point was that it's impossible to be able to identify what kind of warhead a missile is carrying at a distance. If the enemy has two missile types with the same speed and mass, but one of them carries a laser and the other a bomb, how would you be able to know which missile type it is from a distance, even if you've seen these missiles used in the past?
-
Because how the game functions, two separate classes cannot look the same. The moment you get active sensors on a target, you know what class it is. There is no "fuzzy identification" process in Aurora. Steve would have to add that as a feature and it would open a big can of worms and affect lot of other things too - like IFF for example.
-
"The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead."
So is there a single roll to hit and if successful then all the fragmentation attacks automatically hit, or do the individual fragments still have to roll for their own hits?
There is a single chance to hit calculation, but a separate to-hit roll for each warhead. The idea is to maximise the chances of hitting the target at least once.
Does that mean if you have a missile with 1 warhead and Missile Retargeting Capability, then you're guaranteed to get a hit (eventually, ignoring PD), but if you're using a multi warhead missile with Retargeting Capability, then you're not actually guaranteed a hit, because the fragments have separate to-hit rolls?
It seem to me that you should not be able to combine these two in the same missile, would not make sense.
Multiple missile warheads seem best used as AMM. Or, against Fighters and FAC type craft with little to no armour so you don't have to design a smaller launchers and can stick them in you standard larger missile launchers.
-
Because how the game functions, two separate classes cannot look the same. The moment you get active sensors on a target, you know what class it is. There is no "fuzzy identification" process in Aurora. Steve would have to add that as a feature and it would open a big can of worms and affect lot of other things too - like IFF for example.
Yes, correct. We used to have a lot more uncertainty. Thermal contacts for example were standalone and not related to a class, but it created a lot of micromanagement about identifying classes. You could figure it out with calculations of thermal vs speed, etc., plus in the real world you can identify individual ships from their engine noise, so in the end I removed the need for the micromanagement and just identified the target. The same would apply to missiles.
-
Multiple missile warheads seem best used as AMM. Or, against Fighters and FAC type craft with little to no armour so you don't have to design a smaller launchers and can stick them in you standard larger missile launchers.
They'll also be great at clearing out ship decoys, once those have been implemented.
-
"The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead."
So is there a single roll to hit and if successful then all the fragmentation attacks automatically hit, or do the individual fragments still have to roll for their own hits?
There is a single chance to hit calculation, but a separate to-hit roll for each warhead. The idea is to maximise the chances of hitting the target at least once.
Does that mean if you have a missile with 1 warhead and Missile Retargeting Capability, then you're guaranteed to get a hit (eventually, ignoring PD), but if you're using a multi warhead missile with Retargeting Capability, then you're not actually guaranteed a hit, because the fragments have separate to-hit rolls?
A MW missile with retargeting will only be expended if it hits (a missile or a decoy) with at least one warhead. Otherwise, it doesn't detonate.
-
Because how the game functions, two separate classes cannot look the same. The moment you get active sensors on a target, you know what class it is. There is no "fuzzy identification" process in Aurora. Steve would have to add that as a feature and it would open a big can of worms and affect lot of other things too - like IFF for example.
Yes, correct. We used to have a lot more uncertainty. Thermal contacts for example were standalone and not related to a class, but it created a lot of micromanagement about identifying classes. You could figure it out with calculations of thermal vs speed, etc., plus in the real world you can identify individual ships from their engine noise, so in the end I removed the need for the micromanagement and just identified the target. The same would apply to missiles.
I understand what/where the limitation lies, and though I do not understand how much of a hassle it would be, Steve's word that it would be too much is good enough for me.
-
On the PD rework post, the max for fire concentration on BFCs is 10 per target. Shouldn't there also be an option for "unlimited" for the probably rare situation where you don't care about your maintenance supplies and you have more than 10 shots worth of weapons assigned to 1 BFC and you want to overkill a very low amount of targets?
I guess it wouldn't be a good solution, because then you just fire every single shot on the first missile.
Edit:
Hm, the more I think about the fire concentration system, the more confused I get. Aren't you gonna have to min-max the setting for every BFC in your fleet whenever a new salvo of missiles is headed towards you?
-
Heya Steve,
Really enjoying v2. 1. 1 version of Aurora and v2. 2 looks great with all the changes you've been making.
I saw that Plasma Carronades are getting Spinal Mounts.
Is there a reason why Railguns don't have them? I'm really craving my MACs, lol.
Many thanks :)
Mainly because I haven't found a way to implement them that I really like. I considered similar to lasers with spinal just allowing a larger mount, or maybe more shots, but I would prefer to have something with more variety, but that doesn't overpower railguns.
Perhaps allow railguns to be put on turrets? It would increase their service lifespan. Lasers are an upgrade in every way compared to them, exaggerated by the appearance of shielded hostile ships.
-
I just really wish there was a way to rename minerals.. Just cosmetic thing but it would really help with the more hard SF playthroughs.
-
Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.
-
Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.
What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.
-
Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.
What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.
It could act as a MIRV carrying multiple warheads, which have to be engaged by CIWS final fire individually.
-
Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.
What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.
It could act as a MIRV carrying multiple warheads, which have to be engaged by CIWS final fire individually.
But it is actually a single missile, so 1 hitting shot is all that needed for killing it, instead of having to kill all the 'real' MIRVs in the case of a 2-staged missile.
-
Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.
What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.
It could act as a MIRV carrying multiple warheads, which have to be engaged by CIWS final fire individually.
But it is actually a single missile, so 1 hitting shot is all that needed for killing it, instead of having to kill all the 'real' MIRVs in the case of a 2-staged missile.
A souped-up laser-warhead-carrying MW missile with ECM designed to shorten PD range as to be ineffective against the four warheads, plus the extra chance to hit component, would be better than four laser-warhead missiles with each of those components individually, I would think.
Spitballing ideas for this is gonna be a lot of fun.
-
A souped-up laser-warhead-carrying MW missile with ECM designed to shorten PD range as to be ineffective against the four warheads, plus the extra chance to hit component, would be better than four laser-warhead missiles with each of those components individually, I would think.
Spitballing ideas for this is gonna be a lot of fun.
Laser warheads missiles can't have multiple warheads.
Also, we weren't comparing a multi-warhead missile to multiple separate missiles, but a multi-warhead missile to one single warhead missile of the same size.
-
A souped-up laser-warhead-carrying MW missile with ECM designed to shorten PD range as to be ineffective against the four warheads, plus the extra chance to hit component, would be better than four laser-warhead missiles with each of those components individually, I would think.
Spitballing ideas for this is gonna be a lot of fun.
Laser warheads missiles can't have multiple warheads.
Also, we weren't comparing a multi-warhead missile to multiple separate missiles, but a multi-warhead missile to one single warhead missile of the same size.
Ahh, gotcha. Trying to follow along on my phone, must not've been paying attention.
-
I think it would be cool if each individual warhead hit the same spot on the enemy ship, I think it would allow for more armor penetration per point of damage if you did that. Though I guess then you'd just have each missile have 1-strength warheads that basically converts it into a particle lance.
-
@Steve, regarding the new PD mechanics, I have a few questions below mainly regarding the fire concentration limit
3) Each Beam Fire Control is assigned a Fire Concentration from 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest and 3 the default. If this many shots are already allocated against a missile, this fire control will ignore that missile for targeting purposes.
...
c) For each salvo in the 'Potential Salvo Targets' list that is not ignored, the fire control creates a 'Missile List' of the missiles in that salvo in ascending order of the number of point defence weapons currently assigned to attack that missile. The fire control then cycles through that 'Missile List'.
i) If the missile has already been targeted by a number of point defence weapons equal to or greater than the 'Fire Concentration' value of the Fire Control (see point 3), the missile is ignored (as are all remaining missiles in the salvo).
Does this mean if the defender has more than 10x shots than the incoming missiles, only 10 shots will be fired at each missile regardless? Do you think adding higher limits, or an 'unlimited' option here could be useful? Higher limits may be useful for PD ships utilizing small-sized Gauss cannons as the shots are numerous but each shot has a low hit chance.
The second question is whether it makes sense to limit the 'number of expected/average hits against a missile' instead of the 'number of shots fired at a missile'. I think the former keeps the goal of making leakers and overkilling shots possible and makes better sense due to the following reasons:
- It provides a better idea of 'how many shots are wasted (overkilling shots)' for all beam PD types regardless of their base hit chance. 3 shots from a 66% Gauss turret have way more expected number of hits than 3 shots from a 16% Gauss turret. Whereas 3 expected hits from either weapon are expected to have 2 overkilling shots.
- Since it is limiting the expected hits, the list can be shorter and potentially makes the UI less cluttered.
- It works for all incoming missile types regardless of their speed and ECM capabilities. The players do not have to increase this number against better/faster missiles or lower this number against inferior missiles when their shots have a 100% hit chance.
- Players also do not have to reduce this number to 'save' unnecessary shots when their ships get better combat bonuses during the course of a game.
To achieve this, the coding isn't complicated. For each shot, the expected number of hits is its chance to hit, which will be calculated during the PD calculation anyway. Then, instead of recording the number of PD shots currently assigned to attack each missile, record the sum of the chance to hit from the weapons attacking that missile, and sort the missile list in ascending order of the number of expected hits.
-
Hm, the more I think about the fire concentration system, the more confused I get. Aren't you gonna have to min-max the setting for every BFC in your fleet whenever a new salvo of missiles is headed towards you?
Not really. For example, set your fast-firing, low cost point defence weapons to high concentration and high priority. Set your expensive weapons to low concentration and low priority. The expensive weapons will only fire if the cheap weapons are not sufficiently covering the inbounds. If you don't even want all the fast-firing ones to fire, then just stop some ships firing entirely.
Inbound waves tend to be similar sizes so you shouldn't need to do much micromanagement, but I will see how it goes in a campaign.
-
@Steve, regarding the new PD mechanics, I have a few questions below mainly regarding the fire concentration limit
3) Each Beam Fire Control is assigned a Fire Concentration from 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest and 3 the default. If this many shots are already allocated against a missile, this fire control will ignore that missile for targeting purposes.
...
c) For each salvo in the 'Potential Salvo Targets' list that is not ignored, the fire control creates a 'Missile List' of the missiles in that salvo in ascending order of the number of point defence weapons currently assigned to attack that missile. The fire control then cycles through that 'Missile List'.
i) If the missile has already been targeted by a number of point defence weapons equal to or greater than the 'Fire Concentration' value of the Fire Control (see point 3), the missile is ignored (as are all remaining missiles in the salvo).
Does this mean if the defender has more than 10x shots than the incoming missiles, only 10 shots will be fired at each missile regardless? Do you think adding higher limits, or an 'unlimited' option here could be useful? Higher limits may be useful for PD ships utilizing small-sized Gauss cannons as the shots are numerous but each shot has a low hit chance.
The second question is whether it makes sense to limit the 'number of expected/average hits against a missile' instead of the 'number of shots fired at a missile'. I think the former keeps the goal of making leakers and overkilling shots possible and makes better sense due to the following reasons:
- It provides a better idea of 'how many shots are wasted (overkilling shots)' for all beam PD types regardless of their base hit chance. 3 shots from a 66% Gauss turret have way more expected number of hits than 3 shots from a 16% Gauss turret. Whereas 3 expected hits from either weapon are expected to have 2 overkilling shots.
- Since it is limiting the expected hits, the list can be shorter and potentially makes the UI less cluttered.
- It works for all incoming missile types regardless of their speed and ECM capabilities. The players do not have to increase this number against better/faster missiles or lower this number against inferior missiles when their shots have a 100% hit chance.
- Players also do not have to reduce this number to 'save' unnecessary shots when their ships get better combat bonuses during the course of a game.
To achieve this, the coding isn't complicated. For each shot, the expected number of hits is its chance to hit, which will be calculated during the PD calculation anyway. Then, instead of recording the number of PD shots currently assigned to attack each missile, record the sum of the chance to hit from the weapons attacking that missile, and sort the missile list in ascending order of the number of expected hits.
The x10 was a quick UI fix. If I find in playtest that is too much of a restriction, I will make it a popup entry with unlimited options instead of a drag-drop.
Someone else suggested the expected hits rather than number of shots. It is perhaps better from a pure maths perspective but isn't as straightforward for players to comprehend when setting up point defence or designing ships so I will stay with shots for the first campaign and see how it goes.
-
I think it would be cool if each individual warhead hit the same spot on the enemy ship, I think it would allow for more armor penetration per point of damage if you did that. Though I guess then you'd just have each missile have 1-strength warheads that basically converts it into a particle lance.
I've been considered tandem-warheads that do exactly that, like a Javelin, but that would be a different design than the multi-warheads, which are more like a fragmentation shell.
-
I do not think sub 1 damage beam weapons would all too well, as they would have a significantly lower range than the higher range versions. That would make them completely useless against missiles with a laser warhead.
Considering almost every weapon seems to have gotten a sort of rework this update, are you considering something for railguns, microwaves, mesons, too?
I am hoping for a few larger caliber techs so that you do end up with the same racial ground attack values regardless of the beam weapon tech you choose. That would mean higher damage for railguns. What would you do about the other two? They are very niche, as one is sort of an EWAR weapon that fries sensors and fire controls for good. The other is kind of irrelevant as it does not ignore armor well enough or cause enough damage to be valid for me. Mesons were problematic though, as they were quite formidable as a secondary battery in VB6 ignoring all defenses. Maybe it could have an increased rate of fire like gauss canons.
What I would love to see is the option to mount all guns except spinals and lances into turrets when it comes to using them as STOs.
If I did create energy weapons with less than 1 point of damage, they would only be viable as point-blank point defence weapons.
I won't be adding other weapons to turrets as no one would use anything except railguns.
I will do something with mesons at some point, but I am not in any rush. In Traveller (the source of the original meson mechanics), they are very large and often buried underground for planetary defence. One option might be to give them something close to the old mechanics, but make them very large and give them some defensive bonus when located on planets. That would make planets a very dangerous place for large ships to approach, so it might encourage more skirmish battles to take out planetary defences rather than just moving in with large, shield-protected battleships.
Having the initial meson being large and needing to research smaller mesons was one of the ideas that was floated during the initial discussions about the meson rebalance. I'm still quite a fan of it.
If mesons started off at 80cm (25HS) and the meson focusing techs were rebalanced to work more like the particle beam range techs (to avoid these early-tech mesons outranging any of their counterparts), this would solve the main issue that was identified with mesons (namely, that they were too effective compared to other weapons at low tech levels). Early mesons would be massive, power-hungry weapons that still only end up dealing a single point of damage at the end of it, and by the time a faction has developed more compact mesons the other weapons have reached a point where their time-to-kill will be broadly similar to mesons.
-
I think it would be cool if each individual warhead hit the same spot on the enemy ship, I think it would allow for more armor penetration per point of damage if you did that. Though I guess then you'd just have each missile have 1-strength warheads that basically converts it into a particle lance.
I've been considered tandem-warheads that do exactly that, like a Javelin, but that would be a different design than the multi-warheads, which are more like a fragmentation shell.
Sounds cool, but would the trade off for the higher penetration just be a MSP cost? Seems like they would be more powerful in comparison to normal warhead ASMs.
Or are you perhaps thinking of implementing a layer of active anti-missile armor for ships that these tandem warhead missiles would be intended to counter? :)
-
The x10 was a quick UI fix. If I find in playtest that is too much of a restriction, I will make it a popup entry with unlimited options instead of a drag-drop.
Someone else suggested the expected hits rather than number of shots. It is perhaps better from a pure maths perspective but isn't as straightforward for players to comprehend when setting up point defence or designing ships so I will stay with shots for the first campaign and see how it goes.
In my opinion a probable hit ratio seem much simpler than having to do the math yourself, the game would just assign shots based on a minimum level of total hits at any missile.
-
--- As it stands, I think a good way to put Mesons in a good place without too much work in game balance terms is to give bigger mesons more damage pulses. Currently all mesons do one damage with a chance to ignore armor that is rolled per layer.
--- Bigger mesons could have more "shots", and each of those shots rolled per armor layer separately. However all of the "shots" would have one attack roll, so miss and you still do no damage. Not like railguns where the shots roll to hit independently.
--- So bigger mesons would have more power, but as they passed through more and more armor, they'd lose power as they go. Thus, to get the most powerful mesons, you'd need both big mesons, the capacitor tech to fire them at a meaningful rate, and the armor retardation tech to allow those big meson shots to maintain energy through enemy armor.
-
The x10 was a quick UI fix. If I find in playtest that is too much of a restriction, I will make it a popup entry with unlimited options instead of a drag-drop.
Someone else suggested the expected hits rather than number of shots. It is perhaps better from a pure maths perspective but isn't as straightforward for players to comprehend when setting up point defence or designing ships so I will stay with shots for the first campaign and see how it goes.
In my opinion a probable hit ratio seem much simpler than having to do the math yourself, the game would just assign shots based on a minimum level of total hits at any missile.
Yes, but you would still need to do the math. If you have 100 missiles and 300 weapons, how do you know that setting the kill % to (for example) 50% or 100% won't result in only targeting half the missiles with all your shots (because they are hard to hit)?
The shot version means that every missile is targeted at least once and with only basic priority settings you can ensure your most effective weapons are used first and less effective later, so you distribute the shots more effectively and don't have to start adding up the to-hit probabilities in order to pick the right concentration number.
-
The x10 was a quick UI fix. If I find in playtest that is too much of a restriction, I will make it a popup entry with unlimited options instead of a drag-drop.
Someone else suggested the expected hits rather than number of shots. It is perhaps better from a pure maths perspective but isn't as straightforward for players to comprehend when setting up point defence or designing ships so I will stay with shots for the first campaign and see how it goes.
In my opinion a probable hit ratio seem much simpler than having to do the math yourself, the game would just assign shots based on a minimum level of total hits at any missile.
Yes, but you would still need to do the math. If you have 100 missiles and 300 weapons, how do you know that setting the kill % to (for example) 50% or 100% won't result in only targeting half the missiles with all your shots (because they are hard to hit)?
The shot version means that every missile is targeted at least once and with only basic priority settings you can ensure your most effective weapons are used first and less effective later, so you distribute the shots more effectively and don't have to start adding up the to-hit probabilities in order to pick the right concentration number.
I think each of the 3 approaches (limiting total shots, limiting total expected hits, and limiting overall hit ratio) will make sure every missile is targeted at least once, as long as the shot allocation is done in the current way (i.e., one shot to each missile first, if there are remaining shots, rinse and repeat), and the limits are set as upper bounds (to avoid excessive overkills). Setting a
- Limiting total shots: tracks the total number of shots fired on each missile, order this list ascendingly. For each shot assigned, add 1 to the counter.
- Limiting total expected hits: tracks the total expected hits (chance to hit) for shots fired on each missile, order this list ascendingly. For each shot assigned, add the chance to hit of that shot to the counter.
- Limiting overall hit ratio: track the overall chance to miss. This is slightly different, the array starts with all elements of 1, meaning each missile has a 100% chance to leak when no shots are taken. When one shot is allocated to a missile, multiple the (1-chance to hit) to the current record. Order this list descendingly.
I can see the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
- Limiting total shots is the most straightforward to understand, and more useful to plan for the MSP needed for weapon failures. The main disadvantage in my opinion is it must be set up individually for each type of beam weapon to reach the desired effectiveness.
- Limiting the total expected hits is straightforward to plan for 'how many overkilling shots I am willing to spend at most', and it works for all beam weapon types. Its disadvantage is that it is harder to track how many actual shots are limited for each weapon
- Limiting the overall hit ratio gives the best idea of 'what's the minimal chance of each missile leaking when I have more PD than they have missiles', and it works for all beam weapon types. Its main disadvantage is that the number of shots needed (and potentially wasted) to reach the limit will grow exponentially, which is not straightforward.
I love examples so I will give a very simple one :) Consider 3 incoming missiles, and there are 2 BFCs. BFC1 has 2 shots with an 80% chance to hit, and BFC2 has 24 shots with a 20% chance to hit. In this scenario, typically it is considered the defender has more than enough shots for missiles.
For limiting total shots per missile:
- If the concentration limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 3 (default), then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20% (3 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20% (3 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20% (3 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 12.8%, 12.8%, and 51.2% chance to leak
- If the concentration limit for BFC1 is set to 1 and BFC2 is set to 10, then the missiles will be allocated as (note that in the end there are not enough shots to allocate 10 shots per BFC for BFC2):
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (9 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (9 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (8 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 3.4%, 3.4%, and 16.7% chance to leak
For limiting total expected hit per missile:
- If the total expected hit limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 1, then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80%, 20% (2 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20% (2 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (5 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 16%, 16%, and 32% chance to leak
- If the total expected hit limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 2, then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (7 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (7 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (10 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 5.2%, 5.2%, and 10.7% chance to leak
For limiting the overall hit chance against each missile:
- If the overall hit chance limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 80%, then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80% (1 shot)
- Missile 2: 80% (1 shot)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (8 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 20%, 20%, and 16.7% chance to leak
- If the overall hit chance limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 90%, then the missiles will be allocated as (notice the significant increase in the number of shots compared to the last scenario):
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (5 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (5 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (11 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 8.2%, 8.2%, and 8.6% chance to leak
-
I can't see the Word screenshots detailing the PD changes (on Chrome, Firefox, or Safari), so how will AMMs work if the missiles they're targeting are faster than them? Will they just have to self-destruct after missing the first time because they can't catch up or will the same go-around mechanic still apply?
-
I can't see the Word screenshots detailing the PD changes (on Chrome, Firefox, or Safari), so how will AMMs work if the missiles they're targeting are faster than them? Will they just have to self-destruct after missing the first time because they can't catch up or will the same go-around mechanic still apply?
The only way it logically makes any sense if it acquires a new target further downrange. However, AMM's which are slower than the missiles they are targeting currently don't have much of a chance of hitting anyway.
-
So, is it just me, or has anyone else lost their enthusiasm for their current campaign cause of all the new goodies coming in the next release? ;D
-
So, is it just me, or has anyone else lost their enthusiasm for their current campaign cause of all the new goodies coming in the next release? ;D
This is frequently what happens to me, yes. It's also true for Paradox games.
-
So, is it just me, or has anyone else lost their enthusiasm for their current campaign cause of all the new goodies coming in the next release? ;D
I've been waiting for a while since there is so much great stuff queued up. :)
-
So, is it just me, or has anyone else lost their enthusiasm for their current campaign cause of all the new goodies coming in the next release? ;D
I've been waiting for a while since there is so much great stuff queued up. :)
100%. In fact I think 2.1.1 was only out for a couple of weeks before I hit that point, lol.
-
The x10 was a quick UI fix. If I find in playtest that is too much of a restriction, I will make it a popup entry with unlimited options instead of a drag-drop.
Someone else suggested the expected hits rather than number of shots. It is perhaps better from a pure maths perspective but isn't as straightforward for players to comprehend when setting up point defence or designing ships so I will stay with shots for the first campaign and see how it goes.
In my opinion a probable hit ratio seem much simpler than having to do the math yourself, the game would just assign shots based on a minimum level of total hits at any missile.
Yes, but you would still need to do the math. If you have 100 missiles and 300 weapons, how do you know that setting the kill % to (for example) 50% or 100% won't result in only targeting half the missiles with all your shots (because they are hard to hit)?
The shot version means that every missile is targeted at least once and with only basic priority settings you can ensure your most effective weapons are used first and less effective later, so you distribute the shots more effectively and don't have to start adding up the to-hit probabilities in order to pick the right concentration number.
I think each of the 3 approaches (limiting total shots, limiting total expected hits, and limiting overall hit ratio) will make sure every missile is targeted at least once, as long as the shot allocation is done in the current way (i.e., one shot to each missile first, if there are remaining shots, rinse and repeat), and the limits are set as upper bounds (to avoid excessive overkills). Setting a
- Limiting total shots: tracks the total number of shots fired on each missile, order this list ascendingly. For each shot assigned, add 1 to the counter.
- Limiting total expected hits: tracks the total expected hits (chance to hit) for shots fired on each missile, order this list ascendingly. For each shot assigned, add the chance to hit of that shot to the counter.
- Limiting overall hit ratio: track the overall chance to miss. This is slightly different, the array starts with all elements of 1, meaning each missile has a 100% chance to leak when no shots are taken. When one shot is allocated to a missile, multiple the (1-chance to hit) to the current record. Order this list descendingly.
I can see the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
- Limiting total shots is the most straightforward to understand, and more useful to plan for the MSP needed for weapon failures. The main disadvantage in my opinion is it must be set up individually for each type of beam weapon to reach the desired effectiveness.
- Limiting the total expected hits is straightforward to plan for 'how many overkilling shots I am willing to spend at most', and it works for all beam weapon types. Its disadvantage is that it is harder to track how many actual shots are limited for each weapon
- Limiting the overall hit ratio gives the best idea of 'what's the minimal chance of each missile leaking when I have more PD than they have missiles', and it works for all beam weapon types. Its main disadvantage is that the number of shots needed (and potentially wasted) to reach the limit will grow exponentially, which is not straightforward.
I love examples so I will give a very simple one :) Consider 3 incoming missiles, and there are 2 BFCs. BFC1 has 2 shots with an 80% chance to hit, and BFC2 has 24 shots with a 20% chance to hit. In this scenario, typically it is considered the defender has more than enough shots for missiles.
For limiting total shots per missile:
- If the concentration limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 3 (default), then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20% (3 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20% (3 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20% (3 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 12.8%, 12.8%, and 51.2% chance to leak
- If the concentration limit for BFC1 is set to 1 and BFC2 is set to 10, then the missiles will be allocated as (note that in the end there are not enough shots to allocate 10 shots per BFC for BFC2):
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (9 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (9 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (8 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 3.4%, 3.4%, and 16.7% chance to leak
For limiting total expected hit per missile:
- If the total expected hit limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 1, then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80%, 20% (2 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20% (2 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (5 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 16%, 16%, and 32% chance to leak
- If the total expected hit limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 2, then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (7 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (7 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (10 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 5.2%, 5.2%, and 10.7% chance to leak
For limiting the overall hit chance against each missile:
- If the overall hit chance limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 80%, then the missiles will be allocated as:
- Missile 1: 80% (1 shot)
- Missile 2: 80% (1 shot)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (8 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 20%, 20%, and 16.7% chance to leak
- If the overall hit chance limit for BFC1 and BFC2 are both set to 90%, then the missiles will be allocated as (notice the significant increase in the number of shots compared to the last scenario):
- Missile 1: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (5 shots)
- Missile 2: 80%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (5 shots)
- Missile 3: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20% (11 shots)
- In the end, each missile has a chance of 8.2%, 8.2%, and 8.6% chance to leak
I think I still like the third option out of all of those it is the simplest one as long as you understand that getting 100% is most of the time nearly impossible.
There could be three inputs that you use for each fire control in this instance... you set a "minimum" number of shots distributed for each incoming missiles a desired "minimum" hit chance per missile and the lastly a percent of how many shots out of the total assigned to that fire-control it is allowed to use (both minimum and maximum).
This give you a pretty good control over how the fire-control works with relatively little math needing to go on in your head aside from figuring out if you want to restrict the number of shots the fire-control may use.
This also should make it fairly simply to code... if you say that it has to shoot a minimum of "2" times per missile it will do that as first priority, then it will look at the minimum hit probability of there is any shots left. The minimum shots per missiles override both of the other settings, so if you set the fire-control to fire only 50% of it's shots that inly impact when it looks at the minimum hit chance. It should always respect minimum number of shots per missile regardless.
So.. I could set that I want to at least 2 shots on each missile and a minimum hit probability of 80% and that it may use 50/100% (minimum 50% and a max of 100%) of the weapons assigned.
The two shots are respected in combination with other fire-controls in the fleet... the fire control with then use at least half of the shots to reach the minimum hit probability. The fire-control will use at least half the shots even if the minimum to hit probability is reached and is allowed to fire all shots but will stop when to hit probability is reached. Shots above the minimum probability should just be evenly distributed among all missiles with no real regards with "to hit" probability anymore.
This way you can use both these methods... you can say you want to fire 5 shots on each missile and have a hit probability of 10%. Then you effectively are just using the first method in that instance.
I think that with these three simple settings you would mainly have to set it up with intuition rather than using a bunch of math. The minimum to hit probability is something you will only misunderstand once when you put 100% and all shots go into one missile. Also, what I'm trying to avoid here are that I have to tinker with the PD settings for each incoming missiles salvo. I want something that can most of the time be quite generic. Say "2" shots per missile 90% minimum hit probability and 75-100% usage of the fire control. This should then work in 90% of all cases most likely, especially if I have shields to cover any leakers.
-
I think I still like the third option out of all of those it is the simplest one as long as you understand that getting 100% is most of the time nearly impossible.
There could be three inputs that you use for each fire control in this instance... you set a "minimum" number of shots distributed for each incoming missiles a desired "minimum" hit chance per missile and the lastly a percent of how many shots out of the total assigned to that fire-control it is allowed to use (both minimum and maximum).
This give you a pretty good control over how the fire-control works with relatively little math needing to go on in your head aside from figuring out if you want to restrict the number of shots the fire-control may use.
This also should make it fairly simply to code... if you say that it has to shoot a minimum of "2" times per missile it will do that as first priority, then it will look at the minimum hit probability of there is any shots left. The minimum shots per missiles override both of the other settings, so if you set the fire-control to fire only 50% of it's shots that inly impact when it looks at the minimum hit chance. It should always respect minimum number of shots per missile regardless.
So.. I could set that I want to at least 2 shots on each missile and a minimum hit probability of 80% and that it may use 50/100% (minimum 50% and a max of 100%) of the weapons assigned.
The two shots are respected in combination with other fire-controls in the fleet... the fire control with then use at least half of the shots to reach the minimum hit probability. The fire-control will use at least half the shots even if the minimum to hit probability is reached and is allowed to fire all shots but will stop when to hit probability is reached. Shots above the minimum probability should just be evenly distributed among all missiles with no real regards with "to hit" probability anymore.
This way you can use both these methods... you can say you want to fire 5 shots on each missile and have a hit probability of 10%. Then you effectively are just using the first method in that instance.
I think that with these three simple settings you would mainly have to set it up with intuition rather than using a bunch of math. The minimum to hit probability is something you will only misunderstand once when you put 100% and all shots go into one missile. Also, what I'm trying to avoid here are that I have to tinker with the PD settings for each incoming missiles salvo. I want something that can most of the time be quite generic. Say "2" shots per missile 90% minimum hit probability and 75-100% usage of the fire control. This should then work in 90% of all cases most likely, especially if I have shields to cover any leakers.
My main concern regarding having a minimum hit chance is that it is not straightforward that setting this moderately high may cause a lot of shots to be absorbed by a small fraction of the incoming missiles. This problem is more prominent when the chance to hit of each shot is low.
A minor point is more of a personal preference. When facing a superior opponent where the PD shot is not abundant, perhaps engaging all missiles with a 50% leak chance for each is better than engaging 1/3 of the missiles with a 10% leak chance but leaving the other 2/3 unopposed. I.e., if the min hit chance limit is set, it may still have to be adjusted based on each opponent.
-
My main concern regarding having a minimum hit chance is that it is not straightforward that setting this moderately high may cause a lot of shots to be absorbed by a small fraction of the incoming missiles. This problem is more prominent when the chance to hit of each shot is low.
This I understand... but should be something we all can overcome with information and experience fairly quickly.
-
My main concern regarding having a minimum hit chance is that it is not straightforward that setting this moderately high may cause a lot of shots to be absorbed by a small fraction of the incoming missiles. This problem is more prominent when the chance to hit of each shot is low.
This I understand... but should be something we all can overcome with information and experience fairly quickly.
I wish there will be a simulator of some sort after the new PD mechanics are implemented, so the players get an idea of their PD capability (and if the PD system is set up correctly) before heading into real battles :)
-
SM create several ships , SM Create a 2nd Player race , shoot . Then delete the created ships instant simulator
-
ITT: Aurora addicts salivating over how to beat the fun out of the newest meta as quickly as possible with min-max :P
Give it a break and just play through it when it comes out, the game is your simulator. I'm looking forward to the trial and error aspect of it, since RP wise that's basically how most naval doctrine advancements in history have happened anyways.
-
ITT: Aurora addicts salivating over how to beat the fun out of the newest meta as quickly as possible with min-max :P
Give it a break and just play through it when it comes out, the game is your simulator. I'm looking forward to the trial and error aspect of it, since RP wise that's basically how most naval doctrine advancements in history have happened anyways.
So you're saying "most naval doctrine advancements in history happened" in live fire against live hostiles? REALLY?
Do you work for the Naval Torpedo Factory Newport?
Maybe we trial-fire some of these damn things _BEFORE_ we send your sons and daughters out to face the unknown with them? OK? MAYBE???
-
SM create several ships , SM Create a 2nd Player race , shoot . Then delete the created ships instant simulator
Of course, something easier than that is appreciated :P
-
To be honest... we already have a simulator in SM and we are likely to have to use that one. I don't think Steve want to spend time on something like that when there already is a perfectly good way to do it. I have used this way to test stuff in the past and will likely do it in the future as well.
-
So you're saying "most naval doctrine advancements in history happened" in live fire against live hostiles? REALLY?
Do you work for the Naval Torpedo Factory Newport?
Maybe we trial-fire some of these damn things _BEFORE_ we send your sons and daughters out to face the unknown with them? OK? MAYBE???
I mean, this is basically the torpedo situation in WWII. And the AA gun situation...
It's not so much that we don't test things before we deploy them, it's more that the intended use case for most weapons does not always reflect the actual use case, historically. Personally for me that's part of the fun in Aurora! ;D
-
By the way, if I remember right, didn't laser warheads in VB6 use the damage pattern of normal missiles? Are they using the damage pattern of lasers in C# or of normal missiles?
-
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.
This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.
I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
-
CLUSTER BOMBS ;D :D ;D :D
-
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.
This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.
I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.
-
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.
This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.
I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.
Yes, that's correct.
-
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.
This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.
I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.
Yes, that's correct.
Then I think all is on order... and we don't have to worry much about it to be honest.
-
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.
This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.
I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.
Yes, that's correct.
Then I think all is on order... and we don't have to worry much about it to be honest.
In your example the high hit chance and low hit chance weapons have the same amount of shots. You get more varied results if the difference in the number of weapons you have is higher, like in Iceranger's examples:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13098.msg164472#msg164472
-
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.
This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.
I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.
Yes, that's correct.
Although if the missile list is kept in order after each round of assignment, the current assignment will 'prioritize' missiles in front of the missile list when the number of shots is not divisible by the number of missiles.
For example, 5 incoming missiles vs 6 shots of 80% hit chance, 6 shots of 50 hit chance, and 12 shots of 20% hit chance:
- Missile 1: 80%, 80%, 50%, 20%, 20%, overall leak chance 1.28%
- Missile 2: 80%, 50%, 50%, 20%, 20%, overall leak chance 3.2%
- Missile 3: 80%, 50%, 20%, 20%, 20%, overall leak chance 5.12%
- Missile 4: 80%, 50%, 20%, 20%, 20%, overall leak chance 5.12%
- Missile 5: 80%, 50%, 20%, 20%, overall leak chance 6.4%
-
Mainly because I haven't found a way to implement them that I really like. I considered similar to lasers with spinal just allowing a larger mount, or maybe more shots, but I would prefer to have something with more variety, but that doesn't overpower railguns.
Maybe increase launch velocity instead of caliber for spinal railguns?
Though I guess the result on the enemies side is about the same, but it would give them some nice fluff.
-
Spinal railguns would be a nice addition, I kind of miss the old 'crowbars' from Leviathan. :D
-
Spinal railguns would be a nice addition, I kind of miss the old 'crowbars' from Leviathan. :D
Have you even installed the game and launched it even once before writing into this forum?
-
While Steve is changing up some NPRs and he mentioned precursors and invaders a bit could I suggest minefields for precursors? I suggested it once before, it's thematically accurate with them being very defensive. They could spawn with mines already laid or have mine layers. Someone on the discord said as I'm typing this that it'd be fun as long as they're not on the JP. But I don't see an issue with them being laid on the JP itself. It'd be easy to clear a JP of mines as long as you scout it out. And survey ships in a precursor system are already probably dead anyways. It would make dealing with precursors harder and a bit more interesting while also being accurate to the lore of precursors and really highlighting their defense nature
-
Heya Steve,
Really enjoying v2. 1. 1 version of Aurora and v2. 2 looks great with all the changes you've been making.
I saw that Plasma Carronades are getting Spinal Mounts.
Is there a reason why Railguns don't have them? I'm really craving my MACs, lol.
Many thanks :)
Mainly because I haven't found a way to implement them that I really like. I considered similar to lasers with spinal just allowing a larger mount, or maybe more shots, but I would prefer to have something with more variety, but that doesn't overpower railguns.
My preferred spinal railgun would be something that loses accuracy instead of damage with distance, ie it always hits for full damage but at a range where it would normally inflict half damage it instead has half the chance to hit. But on thinking about it that might require overhauling the weapons code since I don't think any weapons have accuracy modifiers, IIRC that's all handled by fire controls.
Another thematic option I can think of would be getting a damage bonus from ship speed.
-
I think it would be weird if spinal railguns had radically different mechanics from normal sized ones. Being able to shoot more than 4 times per volley or something similar would be good enough imo.
-
While Steve is changing up some NPRs and he mentioned precursors and invaders a bit could I suggest minefields for precursors? I suggested it once before, it's thematically accurate with them being very defensive. They could spawn with mines already laid or have mine layers. Someone on the discord said as I'm typing this that it'd be fun as long as they're not on the JP. But I don't see an issue with them being laid on the JP itself. It'd be easy to clear a JP of mines as long as you scout it out. And survey ships in a precursor system are already probably dead anyways. It would make dealing with precursors harder and a bit more interesting while also being accurate to the lore of precursors and really highlighting their defense nature
We used to have Precursor minefields and they were not fun at all. It's one of those things that sounds interesting as an idea but in-game it sucks. Encountering the minefields was boring and frustrating. Plus, there were bunch of bugs involved with them as well.
-
It is exciting to see NPR ship design got an improvement!
@Steve, since the NPR ship templates are removed, do they now make reasonable decisions on ship parameters? For example, fighters and FACs need to be small and fast, beam ships are generally faster than missile ships, and carriers must carry additional fuel and MSP for their parasites (and missile magazines if they have bombers onboard). Will they be able to make fleets with balanced offensive and defensive capabilities?
-
Dang, the NPR ship change sounds amazing. How did the changes get programmed so fast? :)
-
While Steve is changing up some NPRs and he mentioned precursors and invaders a bit could I suggest minefields for precursors? I suggested it once before, it's thematically accurate with them being very defensive. They could spawn with mines already laid or have mine layers. Someone on the discord said as I'm typing this that it'd be fun as long as they're not on the JP. But I don't see an issue with them being laid on the JP itself. It'd be easy to clear a JP of mines as long as you scout it out. And survey ships in a precursor system are already probably dead anyways. It would make dealing with precursors harder and a bit more interesting while also being accurate to the lore of precursors and really highlighting their defense nature
We used to have Precursor minefields and they were not fun at all. It's one of those things that sounds interesting as an idea but in-game it sucks. Encountering the minefields was boring and frustrating. Plus, there were bunch of bugs involved with them as well.
Also, the empty mines stuck around and they'd give you combat interrupts every time one of your ships came into or out of their range unless you found them with an anti-missile sensor and cleaned them out.
-
Dang, the NPR ship change sounds amazing. How did the changes get programmed so fast? :)
Necessity I imagine, I hope this maybe makes it easier to incorporate parasites and their carriers into NPR design too. Seeing energy shields being more common is also very nice though.
-
Will we soon se NPR carriers as well, that would be awesome?
-
Wow, the NPR design changes look great! I agree with the other poster that said this is sounding more and more like 3. 0.
On the topic of spinal railguns, maybe they could trade number of shots for a better range modifier? Maybe it could be +1 RM and -1 shots for the base tech, and then +2RM and -2 shots for advanced spinal railguns. No idea if that would be balanced but it would be somewhat unique. You could use this mod on a "3-shot" high caliber railgun to get a single shot spinal weapon that would be kind of like a Halo MAC.
-
Wow, the NPR design changes look great! I agree with the other poster that said this is sounding more and more like 3. 0.
On the topic of spinal railguns, maybe they could trade number of shots for a better range modifier? Maybe it could be +1 RM and -1 shots for the base tech, and then +2RM and -2 shots for advanced spinal railguns. No idea if that would be balanced but it would be somewhat unique. You could use this mod on a "3-shot" high caliber railgun to get a single shot spinal weapon that would be kind of like a Halo MAC.
The problem with this is that we already have a trade-off for reducing railgun shots. You can reduce the no. of shots to reduce the size and I feel like this would conflict with that.
-
Spinal railguns would be a nice addition, I kind of miss the old 'crowbars' from Leviathan. :D
Have you even installed the game and launched it even once before writing into this forum?
Yes Marski, been here for years, and before that I was hanging out with folks on Starfire Assistant. Dozens of games played. In context, I was commenting on the post above about having spinal railguns, and that continued with Steve saying he hasnt found a way to do that that he liked.
Did you intent your post to sound the way it did, or perhaps it was just a bad day?
-
Spinal railguns would be a nice addition, I kind of miss the old 'crowbars' from Leviathan. :D
Have you even installed the game and launched it even once before writing into this forum?
Yes Marski, been here for years, and before that I was hanging out with folks on Starfire Assistant. Dozens of games played. In context, I was commenting on the post above about having spinal railguns, and that continued with Steve saying he hasnt found a way to do that that he liked.
Did you intent your post to sound the way it did, or perhaps it was just a bad day?
Your post was ridiculous since it's been possible to just put a railgun on a ship for the longest time and in all practicality it is "spinal" railgun. No offense intended but I just had to ask.
-
Dang, the NPR ship change sounds amazing. How did the changes get programmed so fast? :)
Steve is an elite level programmer, he probably codes with two keyboards and four screens and has the best gaming chair.
-
Your post was ridiculous since it's been possible to just put a railgun on a ship for the longest time and in all practicality it is "spinal" railgun. No offense intended but I just had to ask.
It's very weird to be singling out Arwyn, when he wasn't the first one to talk about spinal railguns and Steve himself said he was looking for ways to implement them in this thread.
However, you bring up a good point that the current implementation of spinal weapons doesn't really make them unique enough.
Currently spinal weapons are basically just slightly larger variations of normal weapons with the unique limitation that you can only put one of them on a ship.
That means the current spinal weapons are fixed size. I think it would be much more thematic for a spinal weapon to be a custom size depending on the size of the ship they are built into, in contrast to normal fixed size weapons. So you would just research a generic spinal mount version of a particular laser, for example, and then its stats would only be determined once you actually put it on a ship, cause the stats would be modified by the total size of the ship. That would mean a spinal weapon would be custom built for each class that they are used on, which makes more sense to me than them being the same size no matter what ship you put them on.
-
Spinal railguns would be a nice addition, I kind of miss the old 'crowbars' from Leviathan. :D
Have you even installed the game and launched it even once before writing into this forum?
Yes Marski, been here for years, and before that I was hanging out with folks on Starfire Assistant. Dozens of games played. In context, I was commenting on the post above about having spinal railguns, and that continued with Steve saying he hasnt found a way to do that that he liked.
Did you intent your post to sound the way it did, or perhaps it was just a bad day?
Your post was ridiculous since it's been possible to just put a railgun on a ship for the longest time and in all practicality it is "spinal" railgun. No offense intended but I just had to ask.
Leviathen for those who are not aware of the details of the game is an exellent example to use. The armour and interior damage model is very similar to that of Aurora , and the Spinal KE Weapons in it have a different effect to that of spinal weapons in Aurora, in that the scale of the weapon and the damage dealt is proportionally much larger a single hit from a spinal weapon of a battleship would tend to kill a destroyer in one shot. And I don't think I can fit a spinal weapon of that scale to a ship in Aurora , particularly not a railgun but would love to see an example
If I wanted to model Leviathan style spinal mounts in Aurora at the moment the closest is probably a renamed particle lance for its ability to pierce heavy armour with a single shot
-
Spinal railguns would be a nice addition, I kind of miss the old 'crowbars' from Leviathan. :D
Have you even installed the game and launched it even once before writing into this forum?
Yes Marski, been here for years, and before that I was hanging out with folks on Starfire Assistant. Dozens of games played. In context, I was commenting on the post above about having spinal railguns, and that continued with Steve saying he hasnt found a way to do that that he liked.
Did you intent your post to sound the way it did, or perhaps it was just a bad day?
Your post was ridiculous since it's been possible to just put a railgun on a ship for the longest time and in all practicality it is "spinal" railgun. No offense intended but I just had to ask.
Marski can you do me a favour? please change your tone in your posts its coming off as quite combative and plainly argumentative in a situation that does not warrant it, the other person may be uninformed or they may not be thats not for me to say but I do not appreciate using that tone with someone who is obviously not being malicious or saying anything wrong, keep it civil.
-
Leviathen for those who are not aware of the details of the game is an exellent example to use. The armour and interior damage model is very similar to that of Aurora ...
Is that a board or a video game? Leviathan is way too common of a name to be able to find anything on Google.
-
Leviathen for those who are not aware of the details of the game is an exellent example to use. The armour and interior damage model is very similar to that of Aurora ...
Is that a board or a video game? Leviathan is way too common of a name to be able to find anything on Google.
Leviathan was a board game from FASA in the late 1980's. It was part of a set of integrated board games and an RPG that had a harder sci fi feel than FASA's Battletech universe. The original game release was their fighter combat boardgame, Interceptor, followed by a tank warfare game, Centurion, and then the captial ship game, Leviathan. There was also a theatre level game, Prefect that was more of a traditional stategic boardgame. The associated RPG was Legionare. The whole series was part of the Renegade Legion universe.
-
However, you bring up a good point that the current implementation of spinal weapons doesn't really make them unique enough.
Currently spinal weapons are basically just slightly larger variations of normal weapons with the unique limitation that you can only put one of them on a ship.
That means the current spinal weapons are fixed size. I think it would be much more thematic for a spinal weapon to be a custom size depending on the size of the ship they are built into, in contrast to normal fixed size weapons. So you would just research a generic spinal mount version of a particular laser, for example, and then its stats would only be determined once you actually put it on a ship, cause the stats would be modified by the total size of the ship. That would mean a spinal weapon would be custom built for each class that they are used on, which makes more sense to me than them being the same size no matter what ship you put them on.
There is a bit of a soft conflict when it comes to spinal weapons, because on one hand the current size for spinal weapons really is not "spinal"... on my 30,000-ton battleship a 600-ton laser cannon is hardly "spinal". On the other hand, to scale up the weapon size to something which is properly "spinal" if we follow the existing scaling would mean an absolutely ridiculous amount of damage from a single weapon which would probably break the game mechanics and cause OHKOs on even fairly large ships unless they had a lot of shields (armor would be not much help anymore).
Basically, the current implementation doesn't make a lot of sense, but a more realistic implementation would probably break the game.
-
Well ships and the design model of the game don't bother about surface areas and whether components and armour goes into what space on the ship and what shape a ship has and what pros and cons that would have on damage absorption, armour distribution, sensor equipment, engines, internal components versus exterior components and the interaction between it all. The game just figure every ship is a perfect sphere for armour coverage but for components it just allow you to do whatever.
This is generally why I try to stay away from extreme ship configurations and try to build ships that feels like they are balanced in a relatively natural way. try to imagine to some degree how much external space versus internal space components need to function properly. So... the more armour the less external space I generally have available. No hard facts, just gut feeling engineering.
-
There is a bit of a soft conflict when it comes to spinal weapons, because on one hand the current size for spinal weapons really is not "spinal"... on my 30,000-ton battleship a 600-ton laser cannon is hardly "spinal". On the other hand, to scale up the weapon size to something which is properly "spinal" if we follow the existing scaling would mean an absolutely ridiculous amount of damage from a single weapon which would probably break the game mechanics and cause OHKOs on even fairly large ships unless they had a lot of shields (armor would be not much help anymore).
Basically, the current implementation doesn't make a lot of sense, but a more realistic implementation would probably break the game.
I guess I don't see that as a problem, giant gun needs a dramatic effect. And it isn't like there aren't countermeasures to a single high damage shot with a long recharge time, distance, numbers, an even bigger ship, etc.
Why even spend the resources on a giant gun if it doesn't give you giant results?
-
I have Leviathan, Centurion and two copies of Interceptor on my shelves. That is the origin of the Aurora armour model :)
-
Do the missile changes make 'beam only' play less viable?
AMM spam will be much more scary with these changes. Maintenance supply use will be insane for a PD fleet designed to counter AMM spam.
-
Do the missile changes make 'beam only' play less viable?
AMM spam will be much more scary with these changes. Maintenance supply use will be insane for a PD fleet designed to counter AMM spam.
Interesting. Do you might pointing to which changes give you that impression?
Between the improvement to the PD target allocation algorithm, and the missile changes only really affecting larger missiles, not to mention the addition of missile decoys for ships, I felt like AMM spam was going to much less of a nuisance going forward. All depends on playtesting of course.
-
Do the missile changes make 'beam only' play less viable?
AMM spam will be much more scary with these changes. Maintenance supply use will be insane for a PD fleet designed to counter AMM spam.
Interesting. Do you might pointing to which changes give you that impression?
Between the improvement to the PD target allocation algorithm, and the missile changes only really affecting larger missiles, not to mention the addition of missile decoys for ships, I felt like AMM spam was going to much less of a nuisance going forward. All depends on playtesting of course.
So for AMM spam I mean, when NPR or spoilers use their AMM against ship targets. You get a LARGE volume of small damage missiles when you close to beam range.
The current PD system only has overkill on a volley. It doesn't have underkill as you just kept firing at the next missile until you ran out of PD guns.
The new system appears to have overkill on individual missiles, so more PD is wasted. It will also make underkill more likely as if all guns assigned to kill that missile miss, there is no further backup. So there is more leakage.
Missiles move so fast that using longer ranged weapons isn't going to get you more shots compared to gauss guns.
So PD looks a lot weaker.
PD also shoots so fast and so often that maintenance supply is going to be a problem. I've moved away from using a lot of 5s recharge lasers due to the maintenance costs of rapid fire. To compensate PD ships will now need a good fraction of their tonnage to be maintenance storage. So PD is going to be more costly at the build phase and operation phase.
I agree however play testing will determine if this is the case. This is just my interpretation of how what is written will play out. I hope I am wrong.
-
That remains to be seen. The changes that allow a small number of higher quality missiles to pass the PD screen will let some small AMMs through. That will make it harder to defend your ship. You should not neglect the changes to missile targeting, agility and electronic warfare though. These will have a significant impact for dumb missiles, which have a harder time intercepting their targets. On top of that, fractional warheads will be great for destroying incoming missiles and pretty useless when engaging ships.
-
The current PD system only has overkill on a volley. It doesn't have underkill as you just kept firing at the next missile until you ran out of PD guns.
The new system appears to have overkill on individual missiles, so more PD is wasted. It will also make underkill more likely as if all guns assigned to kill that missile miss, there is no further backup. So there is more leakage.
Missiles move so fast that using longer ranged weapons isn't going to get you more shots compared to gauss guns.
So PD looks a lot weaker.
I was skeptical, so I wrote a python script to simulate old vs new PD allocation schemes. This scenario has the best possible scenario for the old (current) PD allocation system: All missiles in one volley, and all PD fired as single shots, so no overkill. In both cases, it's 100 PD against 20 missile, with a 20% chance to hit for each shot.
After running each scenario 10000 times, and averaging the results, it seems you're correct. There'll be more leakers:
Old PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average: 92.1212
number of missiles stopped on average: 18.4002
New PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average: 67.1664
number of missiles stopped on average: 13.4576
(It assumes the PD allocated to a missile stops firing once that missile is destroyed, can't remember if that's correct. Was mainly worried about missile stop rate.)
PD also shoots so fast and so often that maintenance supply is going to be a problem. I've moved away from using a lot of 5s recharge lasers due to the maintenance costs of rapid fire. To compensate PD ships will now need a good fraction of their tonnage to be maintenance storage. So PD is going to be more costly at the build phase and operation phase.
I agree however play testing will determine if this is the case. This is just my interpretation of how what is written will play out. I hope I am wrong.
Well from my simulation, it seems like MSP use will drop, due to less shots being fired.
My code if anyone wants a look: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P2RitplalMUODffKk2S4qUC_8bz_qqqs/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P2RitplalMUODffKk2S4qUC_8bz_qqqs/view?usp=sharing)
-
The enemy might use AMMs that are no threat at all to ships though, with warheads with less than 1 damage to make them better at their job of destroying missiles.
-
The enemy might use AMMs that are no threat at all to ships though, with warheads with less than 1 damage to make them better at their job of destroying missiles.
That's true. There'll be a strong case for fractional warheads in AMMs, which can't damage ships.
Also, add in a single ship decoy (to half the number of missiles that need to be fired on) and the hit average goes from 65% up to 90%.
-
I'm travelling for the next couple of weeks, so there probably won't be any more updates until I get back.
-
Does that include a 2.2 release?
Safe travels!
-
I was skeptical, so I wrote a python script to simulate old vs new PD allocation schemes. This scenario has the best possible scenario for the old (current) PD allocation system: All missiles in one volley, and all PD fired as single shots, so no overkill. In both cases, it's 100 PD against 20 missile, with a 20% chance to hit for each shot.
After running each scenario 10000 times, and averaging the results, it seems you're correct. There'll be more leakers:
Old PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average: 92.1212
number of missiles stopped on average: 18.4002
New PD scheme:
number of shots fired on average: 67.1664
number of missiles stopped on average: 13.4576
(It assumes the PD allocated to a missile stops firing once that missile is destroyed, can't remember if that's correct. Was mainly worried about missile stop rate.)
I wonder how this case looks if you actually include salvo size effects in the current (<2.2) implementation, as these are not negligible unless you are using single laser turrets for PD (which is...not optimal, anyways). The actual difference may be less than what we see here.
That said, I don't think beam PD getting weaker is a bad thing... some are complaining about beam-only fleets being less viable, but this is kind of the point behind all these missile/PD changes, isn't it? Currently, there is basically no downside to going beams-only because missiles are weaker, costlier, and more logistically demanding than beams (and Steve has shown recently that this is true even when you pursue a fighter-based doctrine, contradicting the conventional wisdom that missile bombers were the optimal form of weaponry). If buffing missiles makes going beam-only more of a challenge then I think that is a net benefit for players, at least I certainly hope no one here plays Aurora because they like how easy it is...
IMO, while the mechanics should not force this there should generally be an overall push towards combined-arms fleets as having more tactical options and flexibility should be a strong payoff for the added research and resource investment for a varied fleet composition. Yes, I can make a serviceable fleet by slapping railguns on everything and driving closer so I can hit the enemy with my sword, but this doctrine has the chief advantage of saving on weapons R&D, so maybe should not be the most effective strategy by default?
For AMM spam specifically, for beam-only fleets the solution remains the same as always, which is strategic superiority either through superior tonnage on station or superior technology (i.e. ECM). If the player is not limited to beams only, then there are more options including counter-AMM spam to distract enemy targeting. I readily agree that AMM spam is not very exciting to play against, but against the NPRs it is rarely an insurmountable problem even for beam-only fleets as it is easy enough to concentrate against NPR fleets (or spoiler... things) and NPRs do not use AMM spam as a cheese strategy with entire fleets of purely AMM ships. A player race would have that option, but then it is up to the player how they want to house-rule such a cheesy tactic, as always.
-
That said, I don't think beam PD getting weaker is a bad thing. . . some are complaining about beam-only fleets being less viable, but this is kind of the point behind all these missile/PD changes, isn't it?
[. . . ]
but against the NPRs it is rarely an insurmountable problem even for beam-only fleets as it is easy enough to concentrate against NPR fleets (or spoiler. . . things) and NPRs do not use AMM spam as a cheese strategy with entire fleets of purely AMM ships.
I prefer to run beam-only games, and time and again I've found that ton for ton, I have to bring more PD than Anti-ship to every engagement. And it's not because of the ASMs; I can handle those readily enough. It's the AMMs; they are much harder to hit, there are a lot more of them per salvo, the salvos are more frequent, and there are a lot more salvos. I've had entire fleets laugh off ASMs, then utterly melt under AMMs when they close for the kill. And in in the case of Spoilers, it's not like you can exhaust their supplies; they will sometimes be sitting on tens of thousands of AMMs. Hopefully some of the changes like the Fractional Warheads, Multiple Warheads, and the removal of Missile Agility will take the sting out of AMMs as ASMs, but PD costing MSP and the new 'leakiness' may make it a wash; we'll have to see what the playtesting shows.
Honestly, I'm hoping the NPR changes will finally allow us the option of disabling missiles entirely; don't get me wrong, I do think a lot of the changes are positive ones, and I fully intend on playing around with them when the time comes. But I just want the option to be able to run beam fleets without having to dedicate over half of my tonnage to missile defense. It's irritating when you just want to have a swordfight and the other guy keeps bringing a gun instead.
-
Honestly, I'm hoping the NPR changes will finally allow us the option of disabling missiles entirely; don't get me wrong, I do think a lot of the changes are positive ones, and I fully intend on playing around with them when the time comes. But I just want the option to be able to run beam fleets without having to dedicate over half of my tonnage to missile defense. It's irritating when you just want to have a swordfight and the other guy keeps bringing a gun instead.
I think this would be the only way to get what you (and others) want; I don't see Steve arbitrarily nerfing the guns just so that swords can be viable without running shields, to use a tenuous analogy - especially when the consensus has been that guns need, and are now getting, a buff.
-
First off, thanks for the code runs. Your data is very interesting! With a bit of tweaking, the code will also be useful for determining the optimal gauss cannon size.
One minor note: Even though the PD will fire less, the current system doesn't use MSP for PD fire.
-
IMO, while the mechanics should not force this there should generally be an overall push towards combined-arms fleets as having more tactical options and flexibility should be a strong payoff for the added research and resource investment for a varied fleet composition.
I agree that more depth and more tactical options are always a great thing. The changes make missile design more interesting. However doesn't this just make the current meta of box launcher shoot and scoot fleets even better?
-
Do the missile changes make 'beam only' play less viable?
AMM spam will be much more scary with these changes. Maintenance supply use will be insane for a PD fleet designed to counter AMM spam.
I think a lot is going to depend on how the AI designs end up handling the changes. My gut feeling, looking at the changes so far, is that there's now counters to most tactics - heavy beam based point defense, a dominant tactic now, is probably going to be counterable by large laser warhead missiles. AMM spam might now be worthless against ships if it uses <1 damage warheads, or less effective against missiles if it continues to use 1 damage ones. A mixed point defense setup combining AMM, point defense, and potentially area defense and CIWS will avoid any weaknesses but also be both research and tonnage heavy, and so on. But if you took the same designs from 2.1 and imported them into 2.2 they would probably balance out about the same.
In a way that does make beam only less viable, but I think of it less as it getting weaker and more like a rock only strategy in rock paper scissors gets weaker if you start adding more options than just the original three.
-
IMO, while the mechanics should not force this there should generally be an overall push towards combined-arms fleets as having more tactical options and flexibility should be a strong payoff for the added research and resource investment for a varied fleet composition.
I agree that more depth and more tactical options are always a great thing. The changes make missile design more interesting. However doesn't this just make the current meta of box launcher shoot and scoot fleets even better?
Obviously, we can't know without actually playing the update, but I think the general sense will be that box launchers are easier to counter with the greater set of options available. One of the big changes that is being underestimated by many is the retargeting module for missiles that allows missiles which would miss the target to not explode and get another chance in the next 5s increment. For AMMs this means if you can intercept the incoming ASMs far enough out you will get several chances to hit for each AMM, which opens up a lot of options that I haven't seen people exploring yet in the discussions.
Beam-only fleets have always been tactically weak against box launcher swarms and that will not really change, but again I think it is good if beam-only fleets have some serious drawbacks and this one is not really major since no NPRs use this tactic. Box launcher swarms also retain the usual strategic difficulties (missile logistics without reloading, ordnance costs, poor JP assault ability, etc.) which beam-only fleets can exploit to even the odds.
AMM spam might now be worthless against ships if it uses <1 damage warheads, or less effective against missiles if it continues to use 1 damage ones.
This is also a key point; coupled with the removal of missile agility, even early AMMs will have some 15% or 20% (fractionally) lower chance to hit with current designs. Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
-
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.
-
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.
I dunno, I mean, just using some Java tool that somebody came up with... ;) It would seem that against size 6 missiles, even with low warhead strength per MSP, one can get 3 warheads, plus the 0.1 MSP "tax" and be actually more effective on paper, before decoys/ecm/jamming/etc. are factored in. And it would seem there becomes a fairly nice "balancing act" on larger ASM's because making them larger makes AMM's less effective, but makes PD more effective versus the current baseline of a size 6 ASM.
-
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.
I dunno, I mean, just using some Java tool that somebody came up with... ;) It would seem that against size 6 missiles, even with low warhead strength per MSP, one can get 3 warheads, plus the 0.1 MSP "tax" and be actually more effective on paper, before decoys/ecm/jamming/etc. are factored in. And it would seem there becomes a fairly nice "balancing act" on larger ASM's because making them larger makes AMM's less effective, but makes PD more effective versus the current baseline of a size 6 ASM.
Forget anything the current missile optimizer tells you, as agility is gone :) Now the name of the game is, how fast defending AMMs can go compared to incoming ASMs
Without agility, ASMs need to be faster than the current ones to make up for the hit chance, which makes AMMs' life even harder without agility.
I'll put my simple examples here, from another post:
Since the MR is fixed, higher missile speed means higher accuracy, and the accuracy is now only a function of missile speed and target speed (let's exclude E-war for now).
Speed = EP/HS*1000 km/s = (engine power per HS) * (engine HS) * (engine power multiplier) / HS * 1000 km/s = (engine power per HS) * (engine power multiplier) * (engine HS) / HS * 1000 km/s
Let's use E to denote (engine power per HS), and use some rule of thumb (engine HS)/HS values, to see how well the new missile model performs.
- For a slow beam warship, let's assume it uses 1.2x engine power, 40% engine ratio, then its speed is 480E km/s (1.2*0.4*1000)
- For a fast beam warship, assume it uses 1.5x engine power, 50% engine ratio, then its speed is 750E km/s (1.5*0.5*1000)
- For a fighter, assume it uses 3x engine power, 50% engine ratio, then its speed is 1500E km/s
- For an ASM, assume it uses 6x engine power, 60% engine ratio, then its speed is 3600E km/s
- For an AMM, assume it uses 6x engine power, 90% engine ratio, then its speed is 5400E km/s.
Then when MR is fixed to 10, we have:
- The ASM has a 3600/480E*10%=75% chance of hitting the slow beam ship, 48% chance of hitting the fast beam ship, 24% chance of hitting the fighter.
- The AMM has a 112.5% chance of hitting the slow beam ship, 72% chance of hitting the fast beam ship, 36% chance of hitting the fighter. Likely the AMM won't do any damage to these ships anyway. The AMM has a 15% chance of hitting the ASM. When it does hit, it is likely to have a less than 100% chance of destroying the ASM due to having to use a smaller warhead.
And this relationship won't change much as tech level progresses. Yes, missiles can use smaller warheads to achieve the same damage, but the reduction is relatively small compared to the engine ratio used in the examples. And when we consider E-war, such saved MSP should probably be devoted to E-war components.
Now, this hit chance is based on a 90% engine ratio AMM, which means 0.1MSP left for an S1 AMM. There is no space for the luxury of multiple warheads, or ECCM components.
If the ECCM is still 0.25MSP, that means realistically they can only be installed on S4 AMMs if you intend to keep a 90% engine ratio (leaving 0.15MSP for warhead and fuel). If multiple warheads are desired, we are looking at S5 and up AMMs.
And when the ECCM on AMMs is on-par with the missile decoy tech, the AMMs still take a penalty on hit chance based on the number of decoys.
So, things are looking pretty bad for AMMs on paper. Hope Steve's playtest prove me wrong.
-
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.
A missile with a .5 damage warhead is going to generally be half the size of a missile with a 1 damage warhead and the exact same performance, because all other missile systems have performance relative to the size of the missile. You'd lose a bit of fuel efficiency for the smaller drive but fuel efficiency isn't usually a big concern for AMMs.
-
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.
A missile with a .5 damage warhead is going to generally be half the size of a missile with a 1 damage warhead and the exact same performance, because all other missile systems have performance relative to the size of the missile. You'd lose a bit of fuel efficiency for the smaller drive but fuel efficiency isn't usually a big concern for AMMs.
That doesn't change the math that the new AMMs will have a very low hit chance against ASMs. As with the agility gone, the base interception chance is purely based on the relative speed ratio. It is low enough that the defending side may have to spend more on AMMs than attacking ASMs.
-
The possible saving grace for AMMs is the retargeting feature. You probably will have to build size 2 AMMs, but you can then get back a lot of the cost efficiency by getting 4+ attack rolls from a single AMM. Requires moderate to long interception ranges to have enough time to get that many attack rolls, but it's not excessive from some back of the envelope calcs in the missile discussion thread.
-
Sub-1.0 warheads will be needed to keep current interception rates, and WH1 AMMs will be more of a dual-purpose weapon much like 10cm laser turrets are currently.
This is really a high hope, the sub-1 warheads do not save much space to begin with. AMMs will become the toy of the riches as the cost of the AMMs needed to shoot down an ASM will be (far) more than the cost of said ASM.
A missile with a .5 damage warhead is going to generally be half the size of a missile with a 1 damage warhead and the exact same performance, because all other missile systems have performance relative to the size of the missile. You'd lose a bit of fuel efficiency for the smaller drive but fuel efficiency isn't usually a big concern for AMMs.
That doesn't change the math that the new AMMs will have a very low hit chance against ASMs. As with the agility gone, the base interception chance is purely based on the relative speed ratio. It is low enough that the defending side may have to spend more on AMMs than attacking ASMs.
I wonder what the ideal parameters for a retargeting AMM would be, since it seems like that might be the winning strategy here. You'd need enough fuel and speed to reach the target missiles and retarget a number of times before the ASM intercepts your fleet. Someone more proficient at math might be able to produce something like a "number of retargets required for x% chance of successful interception", given the ASM's speed and assuming said ASM is detected at an appropriate distance. Like TheTalkingMeowth says, size-2 AMMs with a lower engine tonnage ratio might work out better.
A good thing to note is that this strategy of longer range, retargeting AMMs would also work against laser warheads.
I've been brainstorming a sort of cluster-interceptor concept. These would be mounted on a ship with a large R1 sensor. The first stage would be a missile with appropriate fuel to reach the target and a moderate engine tonnage ratio. The second would be a number of retargeting AMMs with as high of an engine ratio as possible - or alternatively, a pretty good engine ratio and enough fuel to have them continue retargeting for a decent amount of time. You could fire a small number at first to test enemy ASM capabiliies, and gradually pile more on as the ASMs got closer as needed. I'm not sure how much the multiple stages would help, or how it would work with initial targeting for the second stage, but it's something I'm eager to workshop.
-
That doesn't change the math that the new AMMs will have a very low hit chance against ASMs. As with the agility gone, the base interception chance is purely based on the relative speed ratio. It is low enough that the defending side may have to spend more on AMMs than attacking ASMs.
Yeah, but AMMs won't need much more than that, and eventually they get to 1 strength warhead and only really need more engine to keep up. What I'm more worried about is how this gonna affect my in progress MaxTech game... where 270,000km/s is the limit.
-
words of hope
This is my thinking as well, retargeting capability is going to be a game-changer for AMM capabilities but it will require completely new doctrines and tactics to evolve. I get the sense that a lot of people, especially those who only play against NPRs, are not familiar with existing long-range AMM tactics and are still thinking of AMMs as a more expensive version of beam PD.
-
words of hope
This is my thinking as well, retargeting capability is going to be a game-changer for AMM capabilities but it will require completely new doctrines and tactics to evolve. I get the sense that a lot of people, especially those who only play against NPRs, are not familiar with existing long-range AMM tactics and are still thinking of AMMs as a more expensive version of beam PD.
Missiles should not be retargetable at all by other missiles. Would need a three time speed advantage to make it happen.
-
I can see why a 'real' reaction drive missile would need a big speed advantage to turn around cancel its vector and catch up again but these are tnm missiles as a starship can instantly change its direction and speed of motion , so can missiles so once they reach the incoming salvo they do not zoom past them , they merely instantly change their speed and direction and follow along
-
I can see why a 'real' reaction drive missile would need a big speed advantage to turn around cancel its vector and catch up again but these are tnm missiles as a starship can instantly change its direction and speed of motion , so can missiles so once they reach the incoming salvo they do not zoom past them , they merely instantly change their speed and direction and follow along
I'm not sure how exactly the retargeting is gonna work, but if it works like the normal follow orders in Aurora, then (after the missile has 'missed' its target) I could see the missile standing still for one increment while its target is running away at full speed and then it needs the next couple increments (depending on the speed ratio between missile and target) to catch back up to its target.
-
I can see why a 'real' reaction drive missile would need a big speed advantage to turn around cancel its vector and catch up again but these are tnm missiles as a starship can instantly change its direction and speed of motion , so can missiles so once they reach the incoming salvo they do not zoom past them , they merely instantly change their speed and direction and follow along
I'm not sure how exactly the retargeting is gonna work, but if it works like the normal follow orders in Aurora, then (after the missile has 'missed' its target) I could see the missile standing still for one increment while its target is running away at full speed and then it needs the next couple increments (depending on the speed ratio between missile and target) to catch back up to its target.
Missiles move in launch order, IIRC, so AMMs always move after the ASMs they are fired against. As long as the AMM has at least the same speed as the ASM it is targeting, it will be able to keep up indefinitely (or until it runs out of fuel, which is probably not a serious problem here).
-
I think an Ewar officer station and skill can be interesting. Even maybe have modules that give Ewar benefits for the entire fleet, to allow for Ewar dedicated ships.
-
I can see why a 'real' reaction drive missile would need a big speed advantage to turn around cancel its vector and catch up again but these are tnm missiles as a starship can instantly change its direction and speed of motion , so can missiles so once they reach the incoming salvo they do not zoom past them , they merely instantly change their speed and direction and follow along
I'm not sure how exactly the retargeting is gonna work, but if it works like the normal follow orders in Aurora, then (after the missile has 'missed' its target) I could see the missile standing still for one increment while its target is running away at full speed and then it needs the next couple increments (depending on the speed ratio between missile and target) to catch back up to its target.
Missiles move in launch order, IIRC, so AMMs always move after the ASMs they are fired against. As long as the AMM has at least the same speed as the ASM it is targeting, it will be able to keep up indefinitely (or until it runs out of fuel, which is probably not a serious problem here).
Which is why retargetting should take an increment. So move to strike and miss in one increment, retarget in one increment, move to strike, so if same speed, they will take multiple increments to catch them unless double the speed.
-
I've updated the missile decoy rules from the original post. The main changes are:
- Decoys are all 0.5 MSP (and the decoy size tech line has been removed).
- The Decoy EW Strength tech line is changed to Missile ECM, but is mechanically the same. However, Missile ECM will also apply to Ship Decoys (name might change) which will be handled as a form of ordnance.
- The effect of ECCM advantage when attacking missiles has changed. Instead of reducing the effective number of decoys, it reduces the chance of hitting each individual decoy.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164388#msg164388
-
Will it be possible to have retargeting and multiple warheads on the same missile? If so, would the missile be removed, and retargeting cease, if at least one of the "fragments" hit a target?
-
Will it be possible to have retargeting and multiple warheads on the same missile? If so, would the missile be removed, and retargeting cease, if at least one of the "fragments" hit a target?
It doesn't work that way. Multi-warhead missiles release their submunitions at a specified distance from the target. There is no targeting in the sense of %chance-to-hit involved in that process. After they are released, each submnition would retarget independently if it has that capability.
-
Sounds like they are talking about the new Multiple Warhead Missiles (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164435#msg164435) feature, which is different from the existing sub-munitions which release away from the target. In that case, on detonation the warhead is split into X attacks with separate to-hit chances. My guess would be that you are correct, one hit will probably delete the missile and stop retargeting.
-
Will it be possible to have retargeting and multiple warheads on the same missile? If so, would the missile be removed, and retargeting cease, if at least one of the "fragments" hit a target?
As far as I understood it, yes, that's how it works. The retargeting basically just guarantees that 1 of the fragments will hit the target and the other fragments have a chance to miss.
From Steve:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13098.msg164446#msg164446
It doesn't work that way. Multi-warhead missiles release their submunitions at a specified distance from the target. There is no targeting in the sense of %chance-to-hit involved in that process. After they are released, each submnition would retarget independently if it has that capability.
Are you thinking about missiles that carry other missiles? I think he was asking about the new fragmentation missiles specifically.
-
I really like the new decoy missile mechanics. Well, pending balance testing, because I have no immediate idea how it compares balance wise. But the mechanics seem like a great idea as a counter tactic to mass box launchers, if nothing else.
That said, I do have one thing I suggest Steve might want to consider changing, and that's the name. "Decoy Missile" sounds a bit confusing, like it should be a missile you launch to distract fire from other missiles. Obviously anyone following the change log post by post is going to know better, but I expect a lot of questions and confusion from those that don't when the new version launches.
Even just switching it around, ie "Missile Decoy" might make its purpose more clear. Or maybe just "Decoy", "ECM Pod", "Flare Launcher", or something like that. I feel like there might be an even better term but I'm drawing a blank.
I also think it might do well with an associated tech line, just to encourage you to specialize in a few defense options like you currently specialize in only a few weapon types, but I can't think of what. Having a tech line to increase decoy signature seems like it would get unbalanced as decoys would become proportionately stronger even between equal tech opponents as tech increased, so that probably isn't a good way to handle it. Max simultaneous decoys maybe?
-
I like the sound of the new 'Decoy Missile' mechanics, mostly.
I agree with @Bremen, that the name needs work. Missile Decoy would work for me if not for the fact that it's already taken by missile launched decoy penaids. Maybe 'Defensive Decoy', or something similar?
Really, the only issue I have with it, is the prohibitive mass cost. 2.5% of the ships mass for a single decoy that gives 50% reduction in hits? That's a _lot_, for a decoy that only lasts for a single attack. If not for the cost, I could envisage missile combat where multiple waves are survived, by using multiple decoys per wave, or one huge wave is survived by using several decoys, but not at this cost in terms of ship mass. 10 decoys with equal signature (50% hit reduction), would be a quarter of the entire ship's mass!
Perhaps a tech line that starts at 200t/MSP, and increases sharply from there? I disagree with Bremen's take on a signature/MSP tech line, as effectively greater signature just means you can carry more decoys, as there's diminishing returns on decoys with greater signatures.
Obviously playtesting will inform this, but on the face of it, the mass cost seems really high to me.
Is there any reason for the 5 MSP minimum size? What if I want my fighters to have decoys to defend against AMM size missiles?
Finally, a request for clarification - how would these interact with laser heads? I've gotten a little fuzzy on how they're going to work, but they don't go through the CIWS phase right? Will these decoys affect laser warheads? It sounds like they won't but I feel like they should.
I don't mean to sound so critical. Overall I really like the core mechanic here.
-
Yes, agree the name needs work. We already have 'missile decoys' - as they are the decoys on offensive missiles.
In real life we have Active Missile Decoys, like the Nulka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka, but the Aurora decoy affects all missiles regardless of guidance type, so I thought active would be confusing. Chaff was another option, although its a large system so chaff didn't seem to be appropriate. Anyway - open to naming ideas.
Size and Cost has to be high in order to avoid making ASMs economically non-viable. The decoy will significantly reduce the effectiveness of mass missile strikes, but I didn't want it to be a general tactic that made missile warfare much less effective overall, especially given one of the objectives of the current update is to improve missile warfare. That said, I might reduce it a little depending on playtest and there is scope to reduce launcher size without changing decoy missile size.
Yes, it does affect laser warheads.
-
I also think it might do well with an associated tech line, just to encourage you to specialize in a few defense options like you currently specialize in only a few weapon types, but I can't think of what. Having a tech line to increase decoy signature seems like it would get unbalanced as decoys would become proportionately stronger even between equal tech opponents as tech increased, so that probably isn't a good way to handle it. Max simultaneous decoys maybe?
The tech line is Missile ECM, which is used for this and missile decoys.
-
I am somewhat worried. Other changes to missiles were made to make larger missiles viable, now these decoys makes them less viable.
I hope hope that all the changes together will lead to more balanced decision making on missile usage and will not just make them obsolete again.
-
I am somewhat worried. Other changes to missiles were made to make larger missiles viable, now these decoys makes them less viable.
Check the cost and size of the new decoys. Also, they are equally effective against all missiles sizes.
-
Yes, agree the name needs work. We already have 'missile decoys' - as they are the decoys on offensive missiles.
As it is designed like a missile without engine, 'decoy buoy' could be an appropriate name. But this name could imply a longer life time as it has.
'decoy counter measurement' could also be a good name, abbreviated to 'decoy' if context allows it, e.g. 'decoy launcher'
-
I was also confused for a second about the fact that we now have Missile Decoys and Decoy Missiles. I think I would just call the ship-launched ones "flare". Seems fitting enough to me.
Personally, multiple warheads sounds amazing as a alternative to a carrier cruise missile that launches submissiles.
I could envision a big 20 size missile that delivers a bunch of 4 power warheads as opposed to just one big one. More possibilities always seems better to me.
What would be the benefit of doing that?
You would spend extra MSP on it, it would have less armor penetration and some of your separate warheads might miss the target.
The only benefit I can image is that it would perform better against ships that have decoys, but a 4 power warhead would be massive overkill on a decoy, considering a 0.001 warhead is enough to take one out.
I'm reconsidering this, now that we have the preliminary ship decoy rules.
When you have a target that carries a stockpile of decoys and only launches like 1 per incoming salvo, then I guess you could use multi-warhead ASMs to ensure that each missile at least has a portion of their damage hitting the target instead of the entire missile being wasted by the flare. But then again, you could just launch more smaller sized missiles with the same effect, but maybe using a big multi-warhead missile might be more efficient, when you give it other capabilities or missile-launched decoys.
-
Ship decoy works I think since the minimum size of 5MSP creates a shadow of 1000T. Makes the delineation between ship and missile decoys quite simple
-
Flare as a term would work for me, it's short & sweet and most new (and returning) players would instinctively grasp its meaning without browsing the forums for explanations. It's especially fitting since flares are used to lure away IR (heat-seeking) missiles whereas chaff is used to blind radars in general. Or it could be "decoy flare" if we want to keep the term decoy in the name.
And yeah, I don't think that it needs to be cheaper or smaller. It's literally the last line of active defence - after it there's only shields and armour. Incoming missiles will have to survive AMM's, area defence (which might be more viable in 2.2), final fire, CIWS (which can now play an important role besides the trusty old Fleet-wide final fire) and only then will they get a 50-50 chance to hit a decoy - that won't be launched by the defending ship until it is actually needed. So, the defender is never wasting them but neither is there need to deploy dozens and dozens of them. Or if you find yourself in such a situation, it means your defensive strategy was not sound to begin with.
-
I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
-
I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
Those both do very different things though, neither of which is being described. Signal Decoy or Ship Decoy would both work.
The Nixie is close to what is being described, but it is a towed device, Tactical Air Launched Decoys are probably the closest, so perhaps just Tactical Decoy would work.
-
I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
Those both do very different things though, neither of which is being described. Signal Decoy or Ship Decoy would both work.
The Nixie is close to what is being described, but it is a towed device, Tactical Air Launched Decoys are probably the closest, so perhaps just Tactical Decoy would work.
Active electronic countermeasure could be another generic term that is descriptive and generic at the same time. It at the very least conveys that the component has a relationship with the E-War techlines.
-
I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
Those both do very different things though, neither of which is being described. Signal Decoy or Ship Decoy would both work.
The Nixie is close to what is being described, but it is a towed device, Tactical Air Launched Decoys are probably the closest, so perhaps just Tactical Decoy would work.
What's being described is kind of like a flare, really. Or at least I'm visualizing it as a device you chuck out into space that blasts out a huge signature to try to make it look like the ship for a few seconds and then burns out. A bit more complex than just being hot to attract heatseekers, sure, but the same general principle.
In the Starfleet Battles boardgame similar countermeasures were called Wild Weasels, but that's apparently different to the real world Wild Weasel.
-
Size and Cost has to be high in order to avoid making ASMs economically non-viable. The decoy will significantly reduce the effectiveness of mass missile strikes, but I didn't want it to be a general tactic that made missile warfare much less effective overall, especially given one of the objectives of the current update is to improve missile warfare. That said, I might reduce it a little depending on playtest and there is scope to reduce launcher size without changing decoy missile size.
Yeah OK, I see your point. So they're less like a chaff launcher, and more of a sophisticated, expensive decoy device for use in specific circumstances (large waves of missiles). I think I can get with that. The threshold mechanic to activate them makes more sense to me now. I'd still like the ability to upgrade them over time, but I guess the ECM tech will cover that.
I am somewhat worried. Other changes to missiles were made to make larger missiles viable, now these decoys makes them less viable.
I hope hope that all the changes together will lead to more balanced decision making on missile usage and will not just make them obsolete again.
As Steve just made me understand, these decoys will penalise massed strikes of small missiles more than repeated waves of larger, more capable missiles, rather than penalising all missiles equally. So I think it's fine.
-
I agree with the above posts that Decoy Missile is a confusing name for ship decoys. Flare or chaff is probably a more straightforward name for its purpose.
Those both do very different things though, neither of which is being described. Signal Decoy or Ship Decoy would both work.
The Nixie is close to what is being described, but it is a towed device, Tactical Air Launched Decoys are probably the closest, so perhaps just Tactical Decoy would work.
What's being described is kind of like a flare, really. Or at least I'm visualizing it as a device you chuck out into space that blasts out a huge signature to try to make it look like the ship for a few seconds and then burns out. A bit more complex than just being hot to attract heatseekers, sure, but the same general principle.
In the Starfleet Battles boardgame similar countermeasures were called Wild Weasels, but that's apparently different to the real world Wild Weasel.
My vote would be to just have a generic descriptive name, even if it ends up a bit long: Anti-missile defense decoy.
-
I think missile decoy is better because to my understanding it doesn't actually do anything against any other kind of weapon system, unlike other kinds of decoys.
-
I asked ChatGPT for some suggestions, and it had a few reasonable ones:
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
-
I asked ChatGPT for some suggestions, and it had a few reasonable ones:
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
Good idea.
I quite like Anti-missile Decoy.
-
I think missile decoy is better because to my understanding it doesn't actually do anything against any other kind of weapon system, unlike other kinds of decoys.
"Missile Decoy" is the name currently used for the decoys that are launched by missiles, which do work against all weapon systems.
"Anti-missile Decoy" is okay for the ship-launched decoys, though I personally might just call them "flare" colloquially anyway, even if it's not perfectly accurate, cause it's short and gets the point across.
-
I asked ChatGPT for some suggestions, and it had a few reasonable ones:
False signal emitter
Countermeasure decoy
Anti-missile decoy
Missile bait
Defensive countermeasure
Defensive countermeasure drone
Interceptor decoy
AI taking my job hobby! >:(
Anti-missile decoy makes sense to me.
-
Countermeasure Decoy, Self-Protection Decoy, Expendable Decoy would all work well in my opinion.
-
So, thinking about those new antimissile decoys, they basically act as an alternate ciws, with the efficiency increasing as the wave targetting the specific ship get larger.
Tactically the issue i see is like for ciws, it is hard to justify using that weight toward a personal protection rather than just add more gauss turrets that will benefit the whole fleet.
There are some cases where i will consider it like for dedicated command and sensor ships that are especially valuable, but unless they can be used to shield other ships the option seem like it has marginal value to me. If one ship could automatically launch a decoy to shield another ship in the fleet that exceed the thresold then it could open some interesting use cases.
-
From what I understood CIWS will still work by the current PD rules. So for all other types of PD we'll have to set the number of shots fired per missile (I think? Maybe per salvo?), meaning there will be chances of overkilling or under killing missiles. While CIWS will go missile by missile without wasting shots, so they should be quite efficient, and if I remember correctly they go last in the order for PD.
So the interest of CIWS is likely going to be trying to minimize missiles leaking from other PD bubbles from hitting your ships. So they do seem to have some utility and a niche, even if they probably won't be used on all ships.
-
A major use of Decoy's would be to counter the one large Box launcher salvo. If you are taking multiple salvo's with small numbers of leakers then a decoy is probably inefficient, if you are taking one salco which intended to kill or cripple your ships then being able to decoy half the leakers will probably turn kills into armour and shield damage, so requiring a much larger salvo to achieve the goal
-
A major use of Decoy's would be to counter the one large Box launcher salvo. If you are taking multiple salvo's with small numbers of leakers then a decoy is probably inefficient, if you are taking one salco which intended to kill or cripple your ships then being able to decoy half the leakers will probably turn kills into armour and shield damage, so requiring a much larger salvo to achieve the goal
To expand on this: if you have, say, nine decoys on a ship, and you face a box launcher attack, you can launch all nine decoys and avoid 90% of the missiles, basically making the box launcher attack toothless. In contrast, if the enemy is using reloadable launchers with several salvos, you would only launch one or two decoys per salvo and avoid half or 2/3 of the incoming missiles. Of course, reloadable launcher waves are smaller and thus vulnerable to regular point defense envelopes, but presumably there is a tonnage tradeoff between using decoys versus conventional PD methods, and each is better against a different kind of enemy.
I think this in turn will increase the importance of intelligence, scouting, and building a diverse fleet so you can adjust fleet composition to meet new enemies, which is a very good thing.
-
I think this in turn will increase the importance of intelligence, scouting, and building a diverse fleet so you can adjust fleet composition to meet new enemies, which is a very good thing.
This is slightly out of scope for this thread, but afaik the only way to gather intelligence on how a ship is armed is, well, to have them shoot at you. And even then sometimes the intelligence window is finicky about when it registers missile launches. If intelligence gathering is going to become a more important aspect of combat, it would be nice to have more tools and methods for gathering that intelligence.
-
This is slightly out of scope for this thread, but afaik the only way to gather intelligence on how a ship is armed is, well, to have them shoot at you. And even then sometimes the intelligence window is finicky about when it registers missile launches. If intelligence gathering is going to become a more important aspect of combat, it would be nice to have more tools and methods for gathering that intelligence.
Actually, it is possible to collect ship class blueprints from intelligence gathering. I know I've gotten a few from crew interrogations, but if I'm reading the StevePost™ on ELINT (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109678#msg109678) correctly, ELINT will also grant this information as well.
On that note: @Steve would it be possible to tweak the intel formula a bit to have higher chances for "information" like ship classes, sensor specs, etc. and a lower chance of gaining free technology? Right now I think many players avoid ELINT because of how easy it is to get technology (i.e., it feels more like an exploit than a good game mechanic) and I think it would be a bit more flavorful to gather classified ship class specifications more often than techs. This wold be hopefully just a small tweak in the ELINT code?
-
Actually, it is possible to collect ship class blueprints from intelligence gathering. I know I've gotten a few from crew interrogations, but if I'm reading the StevePost™ on ELINT (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109678#msg109678) correctly, ELINT will also grant this information as well.
[...]
Right now I think many players avoid ELINT because of how easy it is to get technology
It is nice that there are alternative options to get ship info, though to do crew interrogations you'd have to have fought and killed enemy ships. While better than only knowing when the weapons fire, it does still mean that you have to ultimately engage in combat to get the info either way.
Where are you seeing that ELINT will give that sort of info? That post only talks about populations and active sensor info. I don't bother with ELINT because it's is such a niche use case that it's not usually worth the effort.
-
Where are you seeing that ELINT will give that sort of info? That post only talks about populations and active sensor info. I don't bother with ELINT because it's is such a niche use case that it's not usually worth the effort.
In the linked post:
Any intelligence gained on a population is also used at the racial level for the purposes of espionage. [...] This is the same check as in VB6 for espionage teams and can result in new technology, survey data, new system knowledge or details of an enemy ship class.
Bolding is mine, for emphasis.
-
A major use of Decoy's would be to counter the one large Box launcher salvo. If you are taking multiple salvo's with small numbers of leakers then a decoy is probably inefficient, if you are taking one salco which intended to kill or cripple your ships then being able to decoy half the leakers will probably turn kills into armour and shield damage, so requiring a much larger salvo to achieve the goal
To expand on this: if you have, say, nine decoys on a ship, and you face a box launcher attack, you can launch all nine decoys and avoid 90% of the missiles, basically making the box launcher attack toothless. In contrast, if the enemy is using reloadable launchers with several salvos, you would only launch one or two decoys per salvo and avoid half or 2/3 of the incoming missiles. Of course, reloadable launcher waves are smaller and thus vulnerable to regular point defense envelopes, but presumably there is a tonnage tradeoff between using decoys versus conventional PD methods, and each is better against a different kind of enemy.
I think this in turn will increase the importance of intelligence, scouting, and building a diverse fleet so you can adjust fleet composition to meet new enemies, which is a very good thing.
It's worth noting that, pending future balance changes, decoys are heavy. 2.5% of a ship's tonnage to have a single decoy with equal signature, which in turn means 9 decoys would be over 20% of a ship's tonnage and probably absolutely gut all other payload space.
I suspect with the current numbers decoys are going to be basically "have one or two if you're expecting box launcher swarms." But they'll be very effective in that scenario, since even doubling the number of box launcher missiles to kill a ship is going to make a massive difference.
It's also potentially useful in very large fleet engagements, since twenty ships firing missiles at one ship can work similarly to a mass box launcher attack. Though in that case it can potentially be handled by splitting fire so it's twenty ships each firing at different enemy ships, though that has its own inefficiencies.
-
Is anything known about the order of actions when it comes to using decoys and defensive fire? It would be great to know how the new electronic warfare is integrated into missile defense. Do the point defense guns fire first and electronic warfare happens afterwards or is it vice versa? Can ship B launch decoys while ship A is targeted?
-
Is anything known about the order of actions when it comes to using decoys and defensive fire? It would be great to know how the new electronic warfare is integrated into missile defense. Do the point defense guns fire first and electronic warfare happens afterwards or is it vice versa? Can ship B launch decoys while ship A is targeted?
The post says decoys are launched "after point defence fire but before CIWS fire".
Also, "If the total MSP of inbound missiles targeted on the ship is equal to or greater than the Decoy Threshold, at least one Decoy Missile will be launched." so only the ship targeted by missiles will launch decoys.
-
I suspect with the current numbers decoys are going to be basically "have one or two if you're expecting box launcher swarms." But they'll be very effective in that scenario, since even doubling the number of box launcher missiles to kill a ship is going to make a massive difference.
Yes, that is their intended role.
-
I suspect with the current numbers decoys are going to be basically "have one or two if you're expecting box launcher swarms." But they'll be very effective in that scenario, since even doubling the number of box launcher missiles to kill a ship is going to make a massive difference.
Yes, that is their intended role.
release when?
-
release when?
Soon™.
-
release when?
Every time you ask, he adds a month
-
I suspect with the current numbers decoys are going to be basically "have one or two if you're expecting box launcher swarms." But they'll be very effective in that scenario, since even doubling the number of box launcher missiles to kill a ship is going to make a massive difference.
Yes, that is their intended role.
release when?
Q2
-
release when?
Just as soon as our omniscient overlord Steve finishes adding in some bugs so us ordinary programmers don't feel bad.
-
One of my most anticipated fixes! Martian androids, here we come!
I've always theory-crafted a game in which I play several player-race companies of millions with a huge neutral population of billions, with each company specializing in different technologies. Now, the bio-company will be far more important - having a team dedicated solely to the best possible androids for colonization, and then selling the proprietary rights to the new genetic material (in the form of colonists), could be very lucrative. Lower oxygen rates, lower temperatures, and lower gravity would make most colonization efforts far quicker and less terraformer-intensive.
-
Finally the legions of Bio/Gen scientists I always start a game with instead of useful CP/PP scientists will be useful for something! ;D
-
I assume that if you genemod people to the point they are outside colony cost 0.0 on your planet you need to supply their new colony with infrastructure?
-
I assume that if you genemod people to the point they are outside colony cost 0.0 on your planet you need to supply their new colony with infrastructure?
That has been the case in VB6 and was pretty useful as it reduced terraforming requirements. In C# it should have the additional benefit of allowing for cheaper specialized ground forces. Right now you have to choose between more expensive and slower to build units and eating an efficiency malus after all.
-
I assume that if you genemod people to the point they are outside colony cost 0.0 on your planet you need to supply their new colony with infrastructure?
That has been the case in VB6 and was pretty useful as it reduced terraforming requirements. In C# it should have the additional benefit of allowing for cheaper specialized ground forces. Right now you have to choose between more expensive and slower to build units and eating an efficiency malus after all.
It would be interesting to have species bonuses to racial weapon/armor values for ground units built on the colonies of certain races (as it would be cool (if gamebreaking) to have the ability to modify the racial traits such as growth rate, construction rate, research rate selected on game start), but I have the feeling these numbers might be tied to more than race, and might be a headache to untangle. Also, it would mean some separation of ground unit by empire species, which might also be a situation to avoid. Ultimately, I'd much rather see the current changes implemented and released rather than continue to wishlist new things, but there's always hope for the future.
-
Finally the genetic modification species! I am going to create human-like beings all over the universes, then release them as independent species and see how they perform.
-
I assume that if you genemod people to the point they are outside colony cost 0.0 on your planet you need to supply their new colony with infrastructure?
That has been the case in VB6 and was pretty useful as it reduced terraforming requirements. In C# it should have the additional benefit of allowing for cheaper specialized ground forces. Right now you have to choose between more expensive and slower to build units and eating an efficiency malus after all.
It would be interesting to have species bonuses to racial weapon/armor values for ground units built on the colonies of certain races (as it would be cool (if gamebreaking) to have the ability to modify the racial traits such as growth rate, construction rate, research rate selected on game start), but I have the feeling these numbers might be tied to more than race, and might be a headache to untangle. Also, it would mean some separation of ground unit by empire species, which might also be a situation to avoid. Ultimately, I'd much rather see the current changes implemented and released rather than continue to wishlist new things, but there's always hope for the future.
This is in the game right now. There are ground unit adaptations for pressure, temperature and gravitation. If you fight on a world that has conditions for which are outside your species' tolerance level, you get significant combat effectiveness reductions. You can work your way around that by either developing specialized units, which are more expensive to build and maintain or you can gene-mod your people so that the conditions become less hostile.
-
This is in the game right now. There are ground unit adaptations for pressure, temperature and gravitation. If you fight on a world that has conditions for which are outside your species' tolerance level, you get significant combat effectiveness reductions. You can work your way around that by either developing specialized units, which are more expensive to build and maintain or you can gene-mod your people so that the conditions become less hostile.
Ahh! I didn't know about the tolerance penalties. That makes perfect sense! And, I suppose it could be argued that the advanced nature of war in the TN era might make any species physical characteristics moot in terms of effects on the outcome of a combat encounter (besides being more or less suited to the environment, as mentioned). Still, I'm all for more options in gene-modding regarding the other (research speed etc.) characteristics mentioned, at some point.
-
I'm running multiple game start-up generations to test if NPRs can handle the new missile options and the new NPR design code. This starting design popped up from one NPR. The 173 missile launchers will probably give the player something to think about :)
Charlemagne class Strike Cruiser 77,846 tons 1,184 Crew 10,108.7 BP TCS 1,557 TH 6,975 EM 0
4480 km/s Armour 10-162 Shields 0-0 HTK 424 Sensors 18/6/0/0 DCR 36-4 PPV 207.6
Maint Life 0.38 Years MSP 2,921 AFR 1347% IFR 18.7% 1YR 7,654 5YR 114,816 Max Repair 1896.8 MSP
Magazine 6,934
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP387.5 (18) Power 6975.0 Fuel Use 34.08% Signature 387.5 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 3,550,000 Litres Range 24.1 billion km (62 days at full power)
Size 65 Decoy Launcher (6) Decoy Size: 65 Hangar Reload 403 minutes MF Reload 67 hours
Size 4 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction) (173) Missile Size: 4 Rate of Fire 1500
Missile Fire Control FC68-R130 (3) Range 68.6m km Resolution 130 ECCM-1
Potgietersrus Ship Decoy (6) Signature: 13000 tons ECM-1 Size: 65
Gobabis Anti-Ship Missile (1636) Speed: 25,000 km/s End: 34.5m Range: 51.7m km WH: 5 Size: 4 TH: 83/50/25
Active Search Sensor AS72-R130 (1) GPS 14040 Range 72.8m km Resolution 130
Active Search Sensor AS31-R20 (1) GPS 1440 Range 31.8m km Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH3-18 (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 33.5m km
EM Sensor EM1-6 (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19.4m km
Electronic Warfare Jammers: Sensor 1 Fire Control 1 Missile 1
Another NPR in the same game start is using size 9 laser torpedoes that carry ECCM plus a single decoy and inflict a 2-point laser hit from 87,000 km out (4.8 warhead at detonation).
This is the largest Precursor ship from the same game, which has decent EW capabilities and strong shields. The missiles have ECM 2 and a single decoy with Missile ECM-2
Grek class Strike Cruiser 39,890 tons 720 Crew 6,242.9 BP TCS 798 TH 4,752 EM 10,710
5956 km/s Armour 6-103 Shields 357-476 HTK 209 Sensors 16/24/0/0 DCR 12-3 PPV 93
Maint Life 0.45 Years MSP 1,173 AFR 1061% IFR 14.7% 1YR 2,585 5YR 38,773 Max Repair 656.1 MSP
Magazine 2,729
Swordsman of Worlds Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP528 (9) Power 4752 Fuel Use 27.52% Signature 528 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,900,000 Litres Range 31.1 billion km (60 days at full power)
Epsilon S119 / R476 Shields (3) Recharge Time 476 seconds (0.8 per second)
Size 34 Decoy Launcher (6) Decoy Size: 34 Hangar Reload 291 minutes MF Reload 48 hours
Size 5 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction) (62) Missile Size: 5 Rate of Fire 1345
Missile Fire Control FC89-R120 (3) Range 89.1m km Resolution 120 ECCM-2
Baltimore Ship Decoy (6) Signature: 6800 tons ECM-2 Size: 34
Albany Anti-Ship Missile (505) Speed: 29,440 km/s End: 45.9m Range: 81m km WH: 7 Size: 5 TH: 98/58/29
Active Search Sensor AS94-R120 (1) GPS 17280 Range 94.5m km Resolution 120
Active Search Sensor AS42-R20 (1) GPS 1920 Range 42.4m km Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH2-16 (1) Sensitivity 16 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 31.6m km
EM Sensor EM3-24 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Electronic Warfare Jammers: Sensor 2 Fire Control 2 Missile 2
This design was from a beam-only race in the same start-up (10 NPRs). Its an ion-engined mid-size ship with a 6000 km/s speed. Also good EW capabilities.
Grim Reaper class Heavy Cruiser 14,320 tons 448 Crew 2,458.3 BP TCS 286 TH 1,742 EM 2,160
6082 km/s Armour 3-52 Shields 72-400 HTK 98 Sensors 16/16/0/0 DCR 8-5 PPV 50
Maint Life 2.27 Years MSP 858 AFR 205% IFR 2.8% 1YR 225 5YR 3,380 Max Repair 217.75 MSP
Magazine 76
Capitán de Fragata Control Rating 3 BRG AUX CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP435.50 (4) Power 1742.0 Fuel Use 77.34% Signature 435.5 Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 1,100,000 Litres Range 17.9 billion km (34 days at full power)
Epsilon S72 / R400 Shields (1) Recharge Time 400 seconds (0.2 per second)
25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 256,000km TS: 6,082 km/s Power 16-4 RM 40,000 km ROF 20
20cm C3.5 Ultraviolet Laser (7) Range 256,000km TS: 6,082 km/s Power 10-3.5 RM 40,000 km ROF 15
Beam Fire Control R256-TS6000 (2) Max Range: 256,000 km TS: 6,000 km/s ECCM-2 96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Magnetic Mirror Fusion Reactor R4 (1) Total Power Output 4.3 Exp 5%
Magnetic Mirror Fusion Reactor R4 (7) Total Power Output 25.1 Exp 5%
Size 19 Decoy Launcher (4) Decoy Size: 19 Hangar Reload 218 minutes MF Reload 36 hours
Sonora Ship Decoy (4) Signature: 3800 tons ECM-2 Size: 19
Active Search Sensor AS76-R118 (1) GPS 11328 Range 76.7m km Resolution 118
Thermal Sensor TH2-16 (1) Sensitivity 16 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 31.6m km
EM Sensor EM2-16 (1) Sensitivity 16 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 31.6m km
Electronic Warfare Jammers: Sensor 2 Fire Control 2 Missile 2
Another NPR, but with 'normal' size ships and only gas core tech. Even so, the size 11 missiles have ECCM-1, three decoys, onboard thermal sensors and a retarget capability. The AMM for this race is size 2.5 and has retarget capability. Other races have size 2 AMMs with dual warheads and size 3 with ECCM and dual warheads.
Risto Ryti class Strike Cruiser 23,223 tons 446 Crew 2,900.6 BP TCS 464 TH 1,560 EM 3,690
3358 km/s Armour 4-72 Shields 123-351 HTK 126 Sensors 18/12/0/0 DCR 12-5 PPV 62.7
Maint Life 1.76 Years MSP 936 AFR 360% IFR 5.0% 1YR 370 5YR 5,552 Max Repair 292.2 MSP
Magazine 1,322
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Nuclear Gas-Core Engine EP260 (6) Power 1560 Fuel Use 43.41% Signature 260 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 950,000 Litres Range 17 billion km (58 days at full power)
Delta S41 / R351 Shields (3) Recharge Time 351 seconds (0.4 per second)
Size 20 Decoy Launcher (8) Decoy Size: 20 Hangar Reload 223 minutes MF Reload 37 hours
Size 11 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction) (19) Missile Size: 11 Rate of Fire 3320
Missile Fire Control FC67-R122 (3) Range 67.2m km Resolution 122 ECCM-1
Avtonom Ship Decoy (8) Signature: 4000 tons ECM-1 Size: 20
Avhustyn Anti-Ship Missile (105) Speed: 15,491 km/s End: 70.9m Range: 65.9m km WH: 7 Size: 11 TH: 51/30/15
Active Search Sensor AS71-R122 (1) GPS 13176 Range 71.2m km Resolution 122
Active Search Sensor AS31-R20 (1) GPS 1440 Range 31.8m km Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH3-18 (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 33.5m km
EM Sensor EM2-12 (1) Sensitivity 12 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 27.4m km
Electronic Warfare Jammers: Sensor 1 Fire Control 1 Missile 1
-
I'm running multiple game start-up generations to test if NPRs can handle the new missile options and the new NPR design code. This starting design popped up from one NPR. The 173 missile launchers will probably give the player something to think about :)
Interesting NPR ship designs
It's great to see NPRs with fast(er) ships! I'm also curious about what the S2.5 AMM looks like and how will it perform against its own ASMs :D
-
I like that spoilers are also generating stronger designs, in particular the appearance of shields is very good.
I'm not completely clear on the last line of the ship designs though, does that just track the number of ECCM components sensors, fcs and missiles have?
-
Another NPR, but with 'normal' size ships and only gas core tech. Even so, the size 11 missiles have ECCM-1, three decoys, onboard thermal sensors and a retarget capability. The AMM for this race is size 2.5 and has retarget capability. Other races have size 2 AMMs with dual warheads and size 3 with ECCM and dual warheads.
Wait, why would thermal sensors help on an ASM? Missiles can only choose a new target if they have on-board active sensors, correct? Or is it any on-board sensor, as long as the target has an active lock from any source?
-
I like that spoilers are also generating stronger designs, in particular the appearance of shields is very good.
I'm not completely clear on the last line of the ship designs though, does that just track the number of ECCM components sensors, fcs and missiles have?
That looks like the equivalent of the old "ECM XX" line, now that ECM is split out into multiple types (sensor jamming, FC jamming, missile jamming). This (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164350#msg164350) is the change note for that.
-
--- Of note, with these new Jammers, will there be Compact versions? I'm gonna go out on a limb a bit and say that the new systems will be 50 Tons (1HS) each, since all three would be equivalent to a full ECM. Will the Compact versions, if there are, be 25 Tons(0.5HS) then? Will Small Craft versions, if any, be 12.5(0.25HS) each?
-
ship pr0nz
Eeeexcellent. I particularly like this idea that some NPRs will use much larger ships than what we're used to, it's about time we had some diversity and also NPR designs that could stand up to our WH40K fleets. ;D
Wait, why would thermal sensors help on an ASM? Missiles can only choose a new target if they have on-board active sensors, correct? Or is it any on-board sensor, as long as the target has an active lock from any source?
If a missile loses an active lock, it can use thermals to acquire a new target - which is particularly good if the target is destroyed before those missiles arrive.
-
Wait, why would thermal sensors help on an ASM? Missiles can only choose a new target if they have on-board active sensors, correct? Or is it any on-board sensor, as long as the target has an active lock from any source?
If a missile loses an active lock, it can use thermals to acquire a new target - which is particularly good if the target is destroyed before those missiles arrive.
Hold on so what I understand is... in order for a missile to be launched at a target and continue tracking it needs an active lock, but if it loses the lock mid-flight it can instead use a passive thermal lock instead? At that point why not allow missile passives to just lock targets by themselves fire-and-forget style?
-
Wait, why would thermal sensors help on an ASM? Missiles can only choose a new target if they have on-board active sensors, correct? Or is it any on-board sensor, as long as the target has an active lock from any source?
If a missile loses an active lock, it can use thermals to acquire a new target - which is particularly good if the target is destroyed before those missiles arrive.
Hold on so what I understand is... in order for a missile to be launched at a target and continue tracking it needs an active lock, but if it loses the lock mid-flight it can instead use a passive thermal lock instead? At that point why not allow missile passives to just lock targets by themselves fire-and-forget style?
When you fire a missile at a target you need an active lock and it will move towards the target until it either reaches it or until your active lock is lost. In that case missiles without sensors of their own are deleted from the game. Missiles with sensors will travel towards the calculated intercept point and will attack any hostile ship they can detect.
Additionally, they can switch target to another vessel if their intended target got destroyed. This was incredibly strong in VB6, when you could launch all salvos at one target and they would switch to ship after ship. In C# all missiles that arrive in the same increment hit the destroyed ship and only subsequent missiles switch targets on their own.
On top of that, the sensors of missiles allowed you to place mine fields and shoot missiles at waypoints. If the enemy got close enough the missiles would start tracking on their own. I have not tried that in C# though.
-
Wait, why would thermal sensors help on an ASM? Missiles can only choose a new target if they have on-board active sensors, correct? Or is it any on-board sensor, as long as the target has an active lock from any source?
If a missile loses an active lock, it can use thermals to acquire a new target - which is particularly good if the target is destroyed before those missiles arrive.
Hold on so what I understand is... in order for a missile to be launched at a target and continue tracking it needs an active lock, but if it loses the lock mid-flight it can instead use a passive thermal lock instead? At that point why not allow missile passives to just lock targets by themselves fire-and-forget style?
When you fire a missile at a target you need an active lock and it will move towards the target until it either reaches it or until your active lock is lost. In that case missiles without sensors of their own are deleted from the game. Missiles with sensors will travel towards the calculated intercept point and will attack any hostile ship they can detect.
Additionally, they can switch target to another vessel if their intended target got destroyed. This was incredibly strong in VB6, when you could launch all salvos at one target and they would switch to ship after ship. In C# all missiles that arrive in the same increment hit the destroyed ship and only subsequent missiles switch targets on their own.
On top of that, the sensors of missiles allowed you to place mine fields and shoot missiles at waypoints. If the enemy got close enough the missiles would start tracking on their own. I have not tried that in C# though.
Yes I know all of this but only onboard active sensors would help you achieve this, now people are saying that passive thermal sensors can also acquire their own targets which would be new. Previously the passives were only useful for sensor buoys.
-
Okay, I might be wrong about that. It has been a few years since VB6, but I could have sworn that they did retarget.
-
I was pretty sure thermal missiles could retarget too to be honest.
-
Yeah thats how I remember it too - a passive sensor on a missile is fine for targeting, and it used to be incredibly powerful in VB6 since each missile would choose a new target in the same increment it hit if the target it was aiming at was destroyed. You just had to put enough of a thermal sensor on there that it got a minimum bit of range, and it would pick a new target that was in the same location.
I always meant to experiment with a HARM type missile homing in on active sensors, but I never got around to it.
-
In VB at least I'm pretty sure you could fire a missile without an active sensor lock, but only if the missiles themselves had their own sensors and you followed the rather cumbersome process of firing them at a waypoint and letting them retarget. I assume it also works in C# but I haven't tried it.
It usually wasn't worth it due to the fairly high risk of missing if you're off on the timing or the enemy changes course, but it was possible if the goal was creating a stealth missile ship.
-
Ok I think me only somewhat keeping up with this thread has caused confusion:
I was under the impression we were talking about C# missiles but now everyone is talking VB6. I can't remember if passives could target in VB6 but I think they need actives specifically to target in C# right?
-
Ok I think me only somewhat keeping up with this thread has caused confusion:
I was under the impression we were talking about C# missiles but now everyone is talking VB6. I can't remember if passives could target in VB6 but I think they need actives specifically to target in C# right?
My point was I can't confirm since I haven't tried it in C#, but missiles with strictly passive sensors would retarget in VB and I assume that is still true in C#. And if a missile would retarget it's theoretically possible to hit a target without an active lock by the launching ship either.
-
In C# passive sensor missiles have suffered from some bugs, so that may be the source of confusion. I know mines have been impossible for a long time because of these bugs, for example.
-
In C# passive sensor missiles have suffered from some bugs, so that may be the source of confusion. I know mines have been impossible for a long time because of these bugs, for example.
You are using present perfect. Is this a confirmation that it is still in the game?
-
You are using present perfect. Is this a confirmation that it is still in the game?
I honestly don't know. I don't use mines, and there have been enough purported fixes that haven't worked that you'd have to ask someone else.
-
I've used mines, though with active sensors. They work fine but the salvos from all the mines all target the same ship. Good against small incursions and scouts.
I've used passive missiles fired at waypoints once but I don't think I was deleting the waypoints, so it wasn't working. The missiles where firing fine from outside of MFC range though.
-
So a lot of good discussion has been had about the PD/missile changes, which I am really looking forward to giving a try.
But I'd like to go back and talk a little bit about the ECM changes. Obviously it now allows you to customize your ECM choices, depending on your fleet composition. This is great, and means that there's more room for specialization. But... if the size and cost is fixed, past a certain size of ship, you're always going to put a full suite of jammers on a ship. It only really feels like there will be meaningful choices at smaller sizes of ships. This may be the intended behavior! In which case, fair enough. But, going off of the example ships posted, it ends up looking very similar to the previous system when there isn't any kind of size scaling for ECM.
The removal of ECCM components is extremely welcome.
-
So a lot of good discussion has been had about the PD/missile changes, which I am really looking forward to giving a try.
But I'd like to go back and talk a little bit about the ECM changes. Obviously it now allows you to customize your ECM choices, depending on your fleet composition. This is great, and means that there's more room for specialization. But... if the size and cost is fixed, past a certain size of ship, you're always going to put a full suite of jammers on a ship. It only really feels like there will be meaningful choices at smaller sizes of ships. This may be the intended behavior! In which case, fair enough. But, going off of the example ships posted, it ends up looking very similar to the previous system when there isn't any kind of size scaling for ECM.
The removal of ECCM components is extremely welcome.
I can't speak for all the EW systems, but I do know for sure that the decoys must scale to ship size to be effective, so cramming every system into a large ship is not a sure thing. However, cramming many systems into a larger ship is I think a reasonable design pattern, we have something similar right now in command modules although the cost/benefit analysis for those is a bit different. I'm not sure if it is intended but it does at least seem reasonable given the current state of the game.
-
There is no inherent issue with ships of certain sizes being more efficient than ships of other sizes in some respects. Large versus small already have their pros and cons in the game and being able to fit components such as ECM, defenses, command and more efficient engines is one of the more effective things a big ship will benefit off.
-
All good points. I agree that there should be economies of scale when it comes to ship design. It all depends on what Steve’s intention is with the feature, really.
Having thought more about it, I definitely prefer it to the system we have for fighter/small craft ECM that we have in place now, where fighter ECM is basically useless because it is so down-tiered.
Of course, I will admit I’m an electronic warfare geek IRL, so I’m excited to see that part of the game expanding.
-
Happy Easter,
I have recently read through the changes list for 2.2.0. What struck me were the proposed decoy missiles. These have a displacement of 200 tons/MSP and can be designed to be anywhere between 5 MSP to infinity in size. What struck me was this phrase:
The chance to hit the ship is equal to: Size Ship in Tons / (Ship Size in Tons + Total Signature of All Decoys).
What is the point of building and developing larger decoys if there is no gain in efficiency for them? They are probably more expensive to develop and harder to fit onto the ship. On top of that, you cannot adjust dosage easily. So why would you ever build a decoy that is larger than the minimum size?
-
What is the point of building and developing larger decoys if there is no gain in efficiency for them? They are probably more expensive to develop and harder to fit onto the ship. On top of that, you cannot adjust dosage easily. So why would you ever build a decoy that is larger than the minimum size?
If you use small decoys, what Decoy Threshold would you use?
-
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. If you could only launch one decoy per increment though, it would be a tactical decision to bring either more smaller or fewer but more capable decoys.
Having a small and standardized decoy is also preferable when it comes to logistics, as every ship would carry these and the only difference between hulls would be the quantity of decoys and not the type they carry.
PS:
Maybe the total signature 2 decoys could not be 2 times the signature of a single decoy. Say, the best decoy counts for 100% of it's signature, the second for 90% and so on. From the 6th decoy onwards they only count for half their nominal value.
-
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. ...
The problem here is that this doesn't scale. If 1 small decoy reduces hit chance by only 1%, what's the point of launching just one? You'd need to always launch a bunch to get a significant effect. This means you'd have to set a very low MSP threshold to fire the decoys, and this means that you'd still be firing off a few even for small missile volleys that the ship probably doesn't need decoys to defeat.
You're better off having larger decoys, where deploying one decoy has a significant effect, and is only deployed when there's a large enough volley to justify expending it.
-
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. ...
The problem here is that this doesn't scale. If 1 small decoy reduces hit chance by only 1%, what's the point of launching just one? You'd need to always launch a bunch to get a significant effect. This means you'd have to set a very low MSP threshold to fire the decoys, and this means that you'd still be firing off a few even for small missile volleys that the ship probably doesn't need decoys to defeat.
You're better off having larger decoys, where deploying one decoy has a significant effect, and is only deployed when there's a large enough volley to justify expending it.
Yes, that's correct.
-
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. ...
The problem here is that this doesn't scale. If 1 small decoy reduces hit chance by only 1%, what's the point of launching just one? You'd need to always launch a bunch to get a significant effect. This means you'd have to set a very low MSP threshold to fire the decoys, and this means that you'd still be firing off a few even for small missile volleys that the ship probably doesn't need decoys to defeat.
You're better off having larger decoys, where deploying one decoy has a significant effect, and is only deployed when there's a large enough volley to justify expending it.
Worse, since the effectiveness of a decoy scales based on the number of missiles that hit that increment, firing off a small decoy against a small salvo becomes extremely inefficient. If each decoy is ~ 10% of a ship's signature, then firing 10 off against 100 incoming missiles means each decoy is stopping ~5 missiles, but firing 1 off against 10 incoming missiles is going to just divert ~.9 missiles on average. So even if the ship has no shields or CIWS to absorb smaller missile salvos smaller decoys risk becoming inefficient just because there's not much point in diverting a few % of small salvos. All the more reason to have decoys at least big enough that you won't fire them off at less than a medium sized salvo.
On the other hand, as long as decoys are in the general ballpark of the right size it doesn't make a huge difference, which is nice. It's enough I'll probably use a standard decoy size across all my ships instead of having battleship decoys, cruiser decoys, etc. I think that's a good balance point.
-
Release when?
-
Release when?
From Steve on the discord -
"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.
I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.
TL:DR - probably months before next release."
-
Soo maybe Christmas. :)
-
dammit marski you jinxed it :P
-
Release when?
From Steve on the discord -
"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.
I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.
TL:DR - probably months before next release."
Well, the motorhome *is* home... So...
-
I hope you have a nice trip in your motorhome Steve. Sounds fun. Certainly a lot more comfortable than hitching with a backpack and tent! Fun times, though long past.
It just occurred to me, since you were mulling over ideas about missiles and how to make them more useful compared to beam weapons, what about the missile sensor rules?
Currently all missiles in a salvo strike the target. What if missiles remaining after a target is destroyed are not wasted but can retarget if they have sensors?
Since this is cheesy as an imaginary scenario, as you would expect all missiles approaching a target to commit prior to the destruction of the target, what if this was reimagined as missile onboard targeting AI, requiring its own research? The idea being the AI research will allow missiles with sensors not used in a salvo to be retargeted.
The AI research could have levels of tech to improve target acquisition, so start off with say a time penalty e.g. 25s to retarget during which the missile can be targeted by PD as though final defensive fire and ships can flee using up missile flight range. Reduce this time with research levels.
Another AI tech could improve the proportion of remaining missiles which are available to try again, so 50% > 100%.
Also what about a really scary AI tech, equvalent to particle lance, where tech 5 in both AI techs allows a new tech which enables missiles to target the same location in the armour of a ship, so drilling through the armour rather than making random divots and allowing missiles to enter the hull to wreak havoc with internal components much more efficiently ?
That could be refinable tech with a degree of spread factor.
Just thinking out loud, its better than cleaning the kitchen!
-
"Just thinking out loud, its better than cleaning the kitchen!"
I'm not going to be the one who says: "you can think while you clean!"
-
"Just thinking out loud, its better than cleaning the kitchen!"
I'm not going to be the one who says: "you can think while you clean!"
but... you just said it... :o
-
See below for the first in-game combat with the new missile rules. This is seen from the perspective of the Precursors defending against inbound missile waves.
Each individual AMM is assigned to an individual inbound missile - salvos sizes are no longer a factor. In this game, the Precursor AMMs are size 2 with ECCM-2 and dual warheads, so each AMM attacks its target missile twice. This could mean one warhead destroys a decoy and the second destroys the missile. The base 27% chance to hit is per warhead, so the chance to hit per missile is about 47%.
The inbounds are size 12 missiles with four decoys each and ECM-1, so the decoys are treated as 20% smaller than the parent missile due to the Precursor ECCM advantage.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/NewAMMs001.PNG)
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/NewAMMs002.PNG)
-
Awesome to see the new leaky point defense working. It might take some fiddling to get the balance right but I think it'll be a great addition.
-
Each individual AMM is assigned to an individual inbound missile - salvos sizes are no longer a factor.
Steve is clearly trying to kill us all with happiness so we will shut up and leave him alone. ;D ;D ;D
-
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?
-
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?
Its only the decoys that were hit, not the total decoys.
-
Awesome to see the new leaky point defense working. It might take some fiddling to get the balance right but I think it'll be a great addition.
I've run the attack a few times to fix bugs, etc. There are 100 missiles attacking a precursor AMM base and a PD base. The attacking force can generate ten salvos of that size (40% reduction launchers). On each attempt, the target base has been hit, varying from 2 to 10 impacts. Before the changes, 100 missiles with a speed of 22,500 would not get anywhere near the target.
The later AMMs and the final PD are more effective because those inbound missiles that survive have been stripped of some of their decoys. It's certainly more interesting to watch.
However, the precursor bases have not yet used their anti-missile decoys because I set the threshold too high. I'll update once that is a factor.
-
This is a quick look from the attacking side, after the first AMM interception (this is a new run through).
There are twenty visible detonations, which are from warheads not missiles. Five ASMs have been destroyed, which means that fifteen decoys were also hit. However, the total number of decoys has been reduced by thirty, because some intact decoys were lost when their parent missile was destroyed.
By looking at the remaining missiles and decoys in the salvos that were attacked, you can also tell the surviving missiles lost ten of their decoys to AMMs.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/NewAMMs003.PNG)
-
How well do the missiles do against an opponent of the same tech level and tonnage?
-
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?
Its only the decoys that were hit, not the total decoys.
Allow me to rephrase. Isn’t it the idea that the defender cannot distinguish the decoys from the real thing? Then the defender should see incoming salvos of “Size 12 ×20” instead of “Size 12 ×4”, and instead of seeing “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 0 Missiles Destroyed 0 Decoys Destroyed 7” they should see “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 7 Missiles Destroyed 7”.
(Granted that the information about decoys vs missiles is probably invaluable during development of the feature!)
-
db48x, I can see that being more realistic. From a gameplay perspective challenge is that under that approach the only indication you would get that the enemy is using decoys is you having a lower than expected hit frequency, which would be pretty nuanced to figure out and could be quite frustrating if you couldn't figure it out. Probably better to give some feedback even if it's not entirely realistic.
For handwavium, you could always argue that the BFC/MFC can always figure out what happened (wrt which targets were real vs decoys) AFTER the fact, just not consistently real-time.
-
How well do the missiles do against an opponent of the same tech level and tonnage?
That would very much depend on the design of the ships of the two races. In this case, the attackers are lower tech, but have a 5-1 tonnage advantage. However, a third of that tonnage is AMM escorts and energy escorts, which are not directly involved, and the ships launching missiles are hybrid energy/missile combatants (see example below), so only a portion of their tonnage is effective. Conversely, the bases they are attacking are designed purely for anti-missile defence.
Royal Sovereign class Battleship 28,125 tons 764 Crew 4,135.8 BP TCS 562 TH 1,800 EM 0
3200 km/s Armour 8-82 Shields 0-0 HTK 163 Sensors 6/24/0/0 DCR 20-7 PPV 156.8
Maint Life 2.22 Years MSP 1,838 AFR 316% IFR 4.4% 1YR 504 5YR 7,564 Max Repair 300 MSP
Magazine 963 / 0
Commander Control Rating 2 BRG AUX
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Parsons PN-600 Triple Expansion Gas-Core Drive (3) Power 1800 Fuel Use 28.58% Signature 600 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 817,000 Litres Range 18.3 billion km (66 days at full power)
Twin 8-inch Ultraviolet Laser Turret (4x2) Range 256,000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 20-7 RM 40,000 km ROF 15
Twin 5-inch QF Ultraviolet Laser Turret (4x2) Range 160,000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 8-8 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
4-inch QF Railgun (8x4) Range 20,000km TS: 4,000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Barr and Stroud MK I Primary Laser Fire Control (2) Max Range: 256,000 km TS: 8,000 km/s ECCM-1 96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Barr and Stroud MK I Railgun Fire Control (2) Max Range: 80,000 km TS: 4,000 km/s ECCM-1 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
R-21 Gaseous Fission Reactor (4) Total Power Output 85.2 Exp 5%
Armstrong Whitworth AW-12 Missile Launcher (8) Missile Size: 12 Rate of Fire 695
Maxwell MF-60 Missile Fire Control (2) Range 63m km Resolution 120 ECCM-1
Perseus Anti-Ship Missile (80) Speed: 22,500 km/s End: 29.7m Range: 40.1m km WH: 9 Size: 12 TH: 75/45/22
Maxwell MX-6M Missile Detection Sensor (1) GPS 16 Range 6.4m km MCR 574.5k km Resolution 1
Maxwell MX-80 Active Search Sensor (1) GPS 13440 Range 83.3m km Resolution 120
Rutherford RT-6 Thermal Sensor (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19.4m km
Rutherford RE-24 EM Sensor (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
-
Very cool, but should it always reveal how many decoys there were like that?
Its only the decoys that were hit, not the total decoys.
Allow me to rephrase. Isn’t it the idea that the defender cannot distinguish the decoys from the real thing? Then the defender should see incoming salvos of “Size 12 ×20” instead of “Size 12 ×4”, and instead of seeing “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 0 Missiles Destroyed 0 Decoys Destroyed 7” they should see “12× … attacked Salvo ID3140 … Missiles Hit 7 Missiles Destroyed 7”.
(Granted that the information about decoys vs missiles is probably invaluable during development of the feature!)
The defender sees the missiles but not the decoys. However, any AMM that detonates without a missile being destroyed is assumed to have hit a decoy, so you can get any idea over time of how many decoys you are facing.
If the defender saw the total decoys plus missiles as a single total, that would initially cause havoc with AMM targeting with the defenders unable to generate enough AMMs to cover all the missiles/decoys, but the defender would eventually work out the right number of AMMs with which to target each type of enemy missile. However, that would involve a huge amount of micromanagement, so its a lot easier to hand wave that part and tell the player how many missiles they are facing. There is probably still some adjustment for AMMs numbers per missiles, but nothing like the chaos if every decoy was assigned multiple AMMs.
-
Another factor I should have mentioned here is that the two Precursor bases, one armed with AMM and the other with energy PD, are each 29,000 tons, which is about double 'normal size', so this attack should probably be seen as equivalent to attacking four bases in a v2.1.1 game. This is because the AI has more varied design options in v2.2.
Num-Toorum class Missile Defence Base 29,068 tons 653 Crew 4,248.8 BP TCS 581 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 7-84 Shields 0-0 HTK 142 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 12-4 PPV 122
Maint Life 0.20 Years MSP 1,096 AFR 563% IFR 7.8% 1YR 5,392 5YR 80,885 Max Repair 1634.6 MSP
Magazine 5,532 / 222
Commander Control Rating 2 BRG AUX
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Size 37 Decoy Launcher (6) Decoy Size: 37 Hangar Reload 304 minutes MF Reload 50 hours
Size 2 Missile Launcher (61) Missile Size: 2 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC16-R1 (13) Range 16.4m km Resolution 1 ECCM-2
La Tablada Ship Decoy (6) Signature: 7400 tons ECM-2 Size: 37
Bahía Blanca AMM (2766) Speed: 60,300 km/s End: 0.5m Range: 1.9m km WH: 2.002 Size: 2 TH: 201/120/60
Active Search Sensor AS14-R1 (1) GPS 80 Range 14.2m km MCR 1.3m km Resolution 1
Electronic Warfare Jammers: Sensor 2 Fire Control 2 Missile 2
-
Almost 3,000 AMMs? Not going to run that out of ammunition anytime soon.
-
Almost 3,000 AMMs? Not going to run that out of ammunition anytime soon.
That'd be pretty terrifying to try to close to beam range against, too. Those bases are always a pain.
-
Thread for discussion of changes announced for v2.2.0. Please do not post bug reports or unrelated suggestions in this thread.
About new missile Decoys and ECM and planned fragmentation warheads.
New ECM mechanics are way to go. It is brilliant.
I suggested flak with hit chance to all missiles in group and shipboard decoys that would give % - percent chance to "dodge" icoming missiles for 1 or several time increments. Usable once or more. In another post several years ago.
So here are more suggestion cause this is IMO what is needed to bring this game to nearly perfect state:
1. Keep old missile ECM mechanics while adding the new missile decoy mechanic. Its player choice then.
2. Fire "Smoke - sensor disruption cause muzzle fire" Area. Too many ships firing their defensive - Point Defence guns in same time increment in same squad lowers hit chance. This gives a reason to split fleet balance-wise.
This chance should be A per gun fired per barrel in 5. sec. SquareRoot (A *3,2) Hard Capped at 40% multiplicative reduction from original hit chance.
A = number of barrels in gun fired.
Hit chance = Hit chance * Math.Max ( 0.6f , 1.0f - Math.Sqrt (A * 3.2f) * 0.01f )
3. Same mechanics can be applied when guns are firing at hostile ships.
Tip: Use lookup table since Square Roots tent to use relatively large amounts of processor compared to other calculations.
4. Increase EM, Heat, and Active sensor signature when there are more than 1 ship in same place - I mean squad.
Same formula as 2,3 capped at 75%
A = number of Ships , in case of Heat with active engine
Sensor Profile = Sensor Profile * Math.Min ( 1.75f , 1.0f + Math.Sqrt (A * 22.5f) * 0.01f )
Reason: lone ships are harder to detect than multiple suspicious DOTS on radar moving together. Always. Size of detection profile is not important.
5. Engine boost for a limited time. Usable once per maintenance cycle. so Military ships with fuel efficient engines and fast engines - fast only for 1-2 minutes when boosted. And fuel guzzling. I leave formula to your imagination. Think about afterburner. Missiles do not need this since they can be multi - staged.
AI would have 2 options. Use on retreat and use to close distance and attack. - beam ships.
Button can be added near raise shields - engine boost.
This implementation is easier than implementing multiple possible types of engines turnable on/off IMO.
6. rename beam fire control to direct fire control. I wrote this at least 4 times.
7. make 1 squadron size ship jump drives more feasible. Think about Star Trek ships.
8. leaky shields. I tested this in my mod Djas extended or whatewer was the name for Space Empires 5.
Its a great thing.
Formula: - example:
If ( (remaining shield Power / 3 ) < incoming damage)
then { remaining shield Power Acts as - is blocking only
is blocking only = 1f * (remaining shield Power /3) / incoming damage
remaining shield Power Acts as = Math.RoundedUp ( remaining shield Power Acts as * is blocking only )
while rest of damage is going to armor
} else {
do normal stuff
}
You can obviously replace number 3 with global constant variable
9. Launching parasites - fighters should have delay. If its not implemented already. Representing carrier group forming up.
Do missiles need active sensor lock? If I launch missiles or mines with thermal sensor only will they hit a target?
10. If these suggestions are too unrelated Im sorry I should post this to suggestions then.
-
Release when?
From Steve on the discord -
"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.
I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.
TL:DR - probably months before next release."
Just to follow up on this, I got back to the island in May 20th and I leave tomorrow for another 23 day trip. We've also just had the two-week TT festival. Needless to say, I didn't get much done on Aurora. I am back on July 9th for seven weeks, before another trip in late August. With that in mind, the earliest likely release is October/November - although we may schedule another trip around then.
-
Release when?
From Steve on the discord -
"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.
I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.
TL:DR - probably months before next release."
Just to follow up on this, I got back to the island in May 20th and I leave tomorrow for another 23 day trip. We've also just had the two-week TT festival. Needless to say, I didn't get much done on Aurora. I am back on July 9th for seven weeks, before another trip in late August. With that in mind, the earliest likely release is October/November - although we may schedule another trip around then.
I'm pretty sure anyone who wasn't patient enough to wait for updates found a different game by now. Have fun on your vacation!
-
Release when?
From Steve on the discord -
"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.
I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.
TL:DR - probably months before next release."
Just to follow up on this, I got back to the island in May 20th and I leave tomorrow for another 23 day trip. We've also just had the two-week TT festival. Needless to say, I didn't get much done on Aurora. I am back on July 9th for seven weeks, before another trip in late August. With that in mind, the earliest likely release is October/November - although we may schedule another trip around then.
Wow that is a lot of traveling! Good for you though. Life is too short to be stuck working all the time.
-
I'm pretty sure anyone who wasn't patient enough to wait for updates found a different game by now. Have fun on your vacation!
Slow updates are the lifeblood of the AARs board... I just wish Steve would announce in advance if he won't update for a year... but if the next one takes even longer we will be golden. ;D
-
I just wish Steve would announce in advance if he won't update for a year.
That would require planning and organization, which I try to avoid :)
-
I just wish Steve would announce in advance if he won't update for a year.
That would require planning and organization, which I try to avoid :)
#JustAuroraThings :P
-
I just wish Steve would announce in advance if he won't update for a year.
That would require planning and organization, which I try to avoid :)
So says the guy who made a game that is entirely about planning and organization!
But I know what you mean; you don’t want to plan your release schedule. You’d rather just play it for a while until you stop seeing new bugs. Then you’ll think to yourself “I could release this now, and hardly anybody would complain” and then you won’t mind releasing it. Sometimes that takes years, other times it takes days or weeks.
-
Having had two times when I could have bought it, (addisons in 1986 and the a stroke in 2016) both were noticed late, the first one was a few hours from death...
Anyway, Steve take all the time you need, make everyday count, for family, friends and others.
Aurora is also your child but that one can wait for som TLC later
-
I am stoked by the reported updates, there is some great stuff in there. The missile updates look very promising! Hope you enjoy your time away, Steve.
-
Wow! This is maybe the best quality of life change I would've never thought to ask for. This is going to save me *weeks* of time remaking the same 40k fleets, researching and unresearching tech over and over again. I can also imagine making a template that's a "starting package" for certain games - just a mashup of every ship component you'd need for a beginner navy in one design that you can just hit Instant Path on. Fantastic stuff!
-
My only question is with the new Class Template system is can we basically design a Prototype "Advanced Tech" Ship, and then be able to use that to "create" a "tech path" to be able to obtain that "futuristic" ship?
With Commercial Ships I tend to just make a "base template" ship already, and then as improvements happen, just take advantage of the improvements without changing anything else. So if I were to design a base 150,000 ton Freighter, using 10 Size 100 .5 Engines at Tech level 2, then as the game goes on, I simply replace the engines, sensors, CIWS, etc with Tech Level 3, 4, 5, etc. without changing anything else (size specifically) so the "benefits" are "real" as "realized". The Freighter which plods along at 275 kps gets up to 12000 kps for example, with it's load capacity remaining the same, weight going down due to armour improvements, which is additive for velocity.
With Military Ships it is much more often trying to cram as much in as possible all the time, but yet generally sticking to the same "doctrine" so getting better/smaller advances freeing up room for either more capabilities or all new capabilities added to the design. Having the ability to have that path "focused" would save quite a bit of micro, and memory strain, especially if one pauses for a few days for real life and if one has not updated notes/spreadsheets properly, fairly easy to get lost in what the plan originally was...
-
Going way back to the ECM changes, I was thinking today about how it's a shame the smaller ECM modules will be gone in the next version (or at least that's my understanding of the changes here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164302#msg164302).
Given the much larger impact of differences in ECM levels now, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have smaller ECM modules that are two levels lower, as that may make them completely ineffective, even when you're 2 ECM levels higher than your opponent.
That's when I had my idea: Instead of ECM modules being core components, what if they were designed components? i.e. instead of an ECM being a fixed size, and pretty impossible to fit onto a fighter, make them more like jump drives, in that they have a maximum tonnage that they can provide ECM for. Then small, fully effective ECMs could be designed for fighters that would do nothing for larger ships, and larger ECMs could be designed for larger ships.
Thoughts?
-
Caught up with all the changes and just want to say while all the new mechanical changes, especially the missile-related ones sounds really exciting, I'm REALLY appreciative of all the QoL love being given to ground forces. All of C# Aurora has been an incredible leap since the VB version, but wow the new ground forces mechanics have been my favorite part. Thanks for all the love planned for it in v2.2.0!
-
I finally sat down and had a proper read through of the new class template mechanics. I have a few questions:
- How do templates get shared between races / games?
- You mention that templates can be shared across a single database. Have you given any thought to allowing templates to be imported/exported to a csv file or something similar?
- Could you add an option that creates prototypes, instead of instantly researching components? You can already create prototypes for components that you don't have the technology for, so I don't think this would break anything.
- Along similar lines as the last point, could you add a button to create a class with current tech, but again make all unresearched components prototypes?
I like the sound of the new system, But I my mind went straight to saving ship designs between games/versions, and then importing them to save me time designing ships during a new game, without using Instant Research points.
-
I finally sat down and had a proper read through of the new class template mechanics. I have a few questions:
- How do templates get shared between races / games?
- You mention that templates can be shared across a single database. Have you given any thought to allowing templates to be imported/exported to a csv file or something similar?
- Could you add an option that creates prototypes, instead of instantly researching components? You can already create prototypes for components that you don't have the technology for, so I don't think this would break anything.
- Along similar lines as the last point, could you add a button to create a class with current tech, but again make all unresearched components prototypes?
I like the sound of the new system, But I my mind went straight to saving ship designs between games/versions, and then importing them to save me time designing ships during a new game, without using Instant Research points.
1) Any race in any game has access to templates created by any other race in any game, as long as they share the same database.
2) I considered CSV, but its very complex to do the templates and there is a lot of scope for problems when transferring between databases, especially if they are different versions. By maintaining everything in the DB, it is a lot easier to prevent bugs.
3) Maybe at some point in the future. For now, I want to see how this works in the wild and then I will look at options for generating research projects for anything not available.
-
1) Any race in any game has access to templates created by any other race in any game, as long as they share the same database.
2) I considered CSV, but its very complex to do the templates and there is a lot of scope for problems when transferring between databases, especially if they are different versions. By maintaining everything in the DB, it is a lot easier to prevent bugs.
3) Maybe at some point in the future. For now, I want to see how this works in the wild and then I will look at options for generating research projects for anything not available.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification :)
-
I assume not, but if a ship class included ground forces (as made possible in v2.2), would those also be researched with the template, or is that a whole separate kettle of fish? The template feature seems to be focused on the *components* of a ship, but once can hope!
-
Hi Steve, quick question, often in the earliest stages of the game I find random precursors on a planet and then It starts an infinite exchange of missles between my ships and theirs. Do they have an infinite amount of rockets on the planet or is it a definite amount and at some point they will run out of them?
Also, after successful invading them, I find the missle stockpile but for some reason I cannot use it (scrap, load them in my ships or whatever), did you manage to solve this? IMHO it is a nice gameplay feature.
-
Hi Steve, quick question, often in the earliest stages of the game I find random precursors on a planet and then It starts an infinite exchange of missles between my ships and theirs. Do they have an infinite amount of rockets on the planet or is it a definite amount and at some point they will run out of them?
Also, after successful invading them, I find the missle stockpile but for some reason I cannot use it (scrap, load them in my ships or whatever), did you manage to solve this? IMHO it is a nice gameplay feature.
They have a large but finite store of missiles. They are supposed to vanish when you conquer the planet for balance reasons.
-
Hi Steve, quick question, often in the earliest stages of the game I find random precursors on a planet and then It starts an infinite exchange of missles between my ships and theirs. Do they have an infinite amount of rockets on the planet or is it a definite amount and at some point they will run out of them?
Also, after successful invading them, I find the missle stockpile but for some reason I cannot use it (scrap, load them in my ships or whatever), did you manage to solve this? IMHO it is a nice gameplay feature.
They have a large but finite store of missiles. They are supposed to vanish when you conquer the planet for balance reasons.
Would you consider changing it in the sense that once you conquer the planet the stockpile remains but the number is randomly decreased to simulate the partial destruction of weapon deposits during the fight.
For example, from a stock of 2578 it decreases to 1000 and something, It would be more realistic in my opinion.
-
IIRC spoiler weapons are not using cheat tech, just tech at levels you are not likely to have by the time they show up.
Being unable to use missiles/guns you did not build as weapons but having them available for reverse engineering so you can see how they were designed and/or advance your tech seems reasonable.
-
Hi Steve, quick question, often in the earliest stages of the game I find random precursors on a planet and then It starts an infinite exchange of missles between my ships and theirs. Do they have an infinite amount of rockets on the planet or is it a definite amount and at some point they will run out of them?
Also, after successful invading them, I find the missle stockpile but for some reason I cannot use it (scrap, load them in my ships or whatever), did you manage to solve this? IMHO it is a nice gameplay feature.
They have a large but finite store of missiles. They are supposed to vanish when you conquer the planet for balance reasons.
Would you consider changing it in the sense that once you conquer the planet the stockpile remains but the number is randomly decreased to simulate the partial destruction of weapon deposits during the fight.
For example, from a stock of 2578 it decreases to 1000 and something, It would be more realistic in my opinion.
They do use the missiles and the stockpile depletes normally.
-
IIRC spoiler weapons are not using cheat tech, just tech at levels you are not likely to have by the time they show up.
Being unable to use missiles/guns you did not build as weapons but having them available for reverse engineering so you can see how they were designed and/or advance your tech seems reasonable.
It used to work that way in previous versions, but allowed players to progress too quickly. The self-destruction of the Precursor missiles is a mechanics to allow them enough missiles for a sustained defence without allowing players to immediately advance to the same tech level when capturing an outpost.
-
Hi Steve, quick question, often in the earliest stages of the game I find random precursors on a planet and then It starts an infinite exchange of missles between my ships and theirs. Do they have an infinite amount of rockets on the planet or is it a definite amount and at some point they will run out of them?
Also, after successful invading them, I find the missle stockpile but for some reason I cannot use it (scrap, load them in my ships or whatever), did you manage to solve this? IMHO it is a nice gameplay feature.
They have a large but finite store of missiles. They are supposed to vanish when you conquer the planet for balance reasons.
Seems to me Kaiser just encountered a bug
-
IIRC spoiler weapons are not using cheat tech, just tech at levels you are not likely to have by the time they show up.
Being unable to use missiles/guns you did not build as weapons but having them available for reverse engineering so you can see how they were designed and/or advance your tech seems reasonable.
Given what Steve's saying, it actually seems like the exact opposite would be the way to go - make it so that you can throw the weapons and/or missiles on your ship - but for some handwavy reason you can't disassemble them.
That could be pretty neat - I'd like the idea of having a couple of bespoke ships using limited, irreplaceable, alien tech. There's a fair number of books and anime that use that idea.
-
Both used to be possible and it usually meant a significant tech leap but also, if you used the missiles, it trivialized the industrial dilemma of supplying sufficient missiles for your ships, as the stockpiles generally were huge. Yes, 'realism'-wise it's an unfortunate change but for gameplay reasons, it works.
-
I mean, also, if I were the precursors and had identified and then been overwhelmed by what I percieved to be a threat, rendering my stockpile of weapons useless (destroying them) before the enemy could capture them would make sense. Some sort of Dead Man's Switch.
-
I mean, also, if I were the precursors and had identified and then been overwhelmed by what I percieved to be a threat, rendering my stockpile of weapons useless (destroying them) before the enemy could capture them would make sense. Some sort of Dead Man's Switch.
Which get me thinking. Who else thinks it would be cool if upon capturing a precursors outpost, all remaining ordinance detonated and applied the correct amount of radiation to the planet. Would not damage any existing structures/infrastructure or effect and of the players ground forces, but would poison the planet for a least a little while after taking it and as you say, make sense with the destruction of any remaining stockpiles.
-
Maybe a roll between how much is scrapped (the self destruct system failing but still ruining the missile) and how much detonates?
And it'd be at least nice to know the design.
-
Could also just have the munition destruction protocol not completely succeed because its thousands of years old (or however long I dont remember the lore), hence you get some missiles but not the whole intact stockpile.
-
Could also just have the munition destruction protocol not completely succeed because its thousands of years old (or however long I dont remember the lore), hence you get some missiles but not the whole intact stockpile.
Yeah that's what I meant, a plausible/realistic justification to obtain some of the stockpile. However Steve said the stock should vanquish, but I remember I was getting it intact without the possibility to use it, so maybe a bug?
-
Any chance for a similar event notification when a wreck disappears but not due to player salvage efforts? This would have been useful for me a couple times when a, hmm, certain NPR kept stealing wrecks out from me, with a notification I could have sent a ship to intercept their salvager(s).
-
Any chance for a similar event notification when a wreck disappears but not due to player salvage efforts? This would have been useful for me a couple times when a, hmm, certain NPR kept stealing wrecks out from me, with a notification I could have sent a ship to intercept their salvager(s).
Added.
-
Noticing you've got a display error with the wreck detection, unless the original ships classes were named "Wreck of" initially.
-
Noticing you've got a display error with the wreck detection, unless the original ships classes were named "Wreck of" initially.
Yes, well spotted.
-
A very exciting bunch of things.
In the missile discourse, it seems like a number of mechanics were added that make large ASMs better...
But only a little that makes the 1 MSP sandblaster attack worse. Losing agility means they will have less accuracy. It seems like that's all. Anything I'm missing?
(Though the fact that you're less likely to be using 1 MSP AMMs that can double as 1 MSP ASMs, while not directly nerfing 1 MSP ASMs as such, may count for a lot.)
-
After the major disappointment of Distant Worlds 2, and my lack of interest in whatever is new in GC4, I'm looking again to Aurora! I know it must have been asked numerous time before, but what could be the time frame for the release of 2.2? Spring? Later? I see the last post (from Steve) on 2.1 is 15 months ago.
-
Regarding the ship class templates, can we have them so we can export and import them?
It will be helpful when starting a new game on a new version, and also sharing on the forum.
-
Regarding the ship class templates, can we have them so we can export and import them?
It will be helpful when starting a new game on a new version, and also sharing on the forum.
You might find this post from Steve relevant: https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13098.msg166015#msg166015 (https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13098.msg166015#msg166015)
-
Release when?
From Steve on the discord -
"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.
I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.
TL:DR - probably months before next release."
Just to follow up on this, I got back to the island in May 20th and I leave tomorrow for another 23 day trip. We've also just had the two-week TT festival. Needless to say, I didn't get much done on Aurora. I am back on July 9th for seven weeks, before another trip in late August. With that in mind, the earliest likely release is October/November - although we may schedule another trip around then.
Hello Steve, I'll take the responsibility for asking and be the annoying guy ::) Are you gonna release Aurora within the end of the month? Can't wait to start a new campaign :P
-
I'll share your burden and take half of your annoyance factor then, as I have the same question ;D
-
--- I'll further partake and assume a third of the responsibility as I too have the same desire.
-
I'll do what I always do and advise everyone to just start a campaign whenever they feel like it, since the 2.2 update will not have an expiration date when it does come, you can always keep playing a 2.1 game if you enjoy it, so why deny yourselves fun in the meantime? ;D
-
I'll do what I always do and advise everyone to just start a campaign whenever they feel like it, since the 2.2 update will not have an expiration date when it does come, you can always keep playing a 2.1 game if you enjoy it, so why deny yourselves fun in the meantime? ;D
Strong agree. While I've been on here checking for the fabled 2.2 to drop just about every day for the last year, I started a new 2.1 game about 6 weeks ago, and it's the most fun playthrough I've had so far ;D
-
I'll do what I always do and advise everyone to just start a campaign whenever they feel like it, since the 2.2 update will not have an expiration date when it does come, you can always keep playing a 2.1 game if you enjoy it, so why deny yourselves fun in the meantime? ;D
The QOL for ground forces is what's stopping me.
-
Let's see... the rule is add one month per person asking, so that's 2 more months added. Hmm... probably going to come out about the same time Star Citizen goes into release.
-
Let's see... the rule is add one month per person asking, so that's 2 more months added. Hmm... probably going to come out about the same time Star Citizen goes into release.
(https://media.tenor.com/m3Xe_CyMio0AAAAC/facts-brother-so-true.gif)
-
Let's see... the rule is add one month per person asking, so that's 2 more months added. Hmm... probably going to come out about the same time Star Citizen goes into release.
(https://i.imgur.com//nIcnPO2.gif)
-
This is nasty!
Sarah disapproves!
Vasco ... well it does not care.
Karlach disapproves!
Astarion approves!
-
Let's see... the rule is add one month per person asking, so that's 2 more months added. Hmm... probably going to come out about the same time Star Citizen goes into release.
There is a line below your post saying you develop with Unity, did any of the recent drama with Unity change that? I know a few people who are indy game devs and some of them decided to spend the time to convert from Unity to another engine.
If we all asked Steve when the update was coming out every day for a year, we could delay until Star Citizen is finished. I think it's coming out in 3455.
-
Relax guys, I asked just because Steve had set October/November as possible deadline. I now prefer to wait for the new update before starting a new campaign, I want use the new options from the beginning, rather then messing up in the middle ;)
-
I'm back in the motorhome on Nov 22nd for a couple of weeks, so unless it happens before then, which is unlikely, it will be late December at the earliest and probably early 2024. The good news is that I am playtesting a lot at the moment, but still finding occasional bugs, and that my intention is to release when ready rather than add more significant content.
-
Grouping Wrecks
I've added an option for v2.2 to group wrecks in the same way as contacts, as shown below. This screenshot is the result of two alien races having a disagreement over their shared home world.
Really happy for this addition! Viewing a system with a lot of wrecks at the same location or near each other gets bit annoying.
-
Grouping Wrecks
I've added an option for v2.2 to group wrecks in the same way as contacts, as shown below. This screenshot is the result of two alien races having a disagreement over their shared home world.
Really happy for this addition! Viewing a system with a lot of wrecks at the same location or near each other gets bit annoying.
In my playtest game, I found two races with the same home world. Eventually, they started a war across the entire system and left almost four hundred wrecks. I am conducting salvage operations, while fighting off what remains of both sides. Wreck grouping was required to keep me sane :)
-
In my playtest game, I found two races with the same home world.
That's an option?! How often is that likely to occur? Are special circumstances required?
-
In my playtest game, I found two races with the same home world.
That's an option?! How often is that likely to occur? Are special circumstances required?
Its rare, but it can happen as part of normal system generation. There is also an extremely rare chance of three races on the same home world.
-
I'm guessing the latest change to event loading means the old method of DB editing to de-bloat the save file is no longer necessary.
-
Is it possible to have the DB create a separate file with all the events when it does housekeeping? Or having a storage file it adds to when it does housekeeping?
-
I'm guessing the latest change to event loading means the old method of DB editing to de-bloat the save file is no longer necessary.
There is already is a cut-off at two years. This is adding an absolute limit rather than just time.
-
When a game loads, a maximum of 10,000 past events will be loaded ...
How much it could be difficult to set this value each time?
If I reload a match after some days not playing, I confess I don't remember the details of what happened. ;D
-
When a game loads, a maximum of 10,000 past events will be loaded ...
How much it could be difficult to set this value each time?
If I reload a match after some days not playing, I confess I don't remember the details of what happened. ;D
Even if you don't, I doubt you will be reading through the last 10,000 events. If it becomes an issue in real games, I will add something, but I suspect if I hadn't said anything, no one would even notice.
-
When a game loads, a maximum of 10,000 past events will be loaded ...
How much it could be difficult to set this value each time?
If I reload a match after some days not playing, I confess I don't remember the details of what happened. ;D
Even if you don't, I doubt you will be reading through the last 10,000 events. If it becomes an issue in real games, I will add something, but I suspect if I hadn't said anything, no one would even notice.
The only way I see this limit being reached is if there are multiple large ground battles playing out. Those generate a lot of events.
-
The only way I see this limit being reached is if there are multiple large ground battles playing out. Those generate a lot of events.
In that case I suspect the culprit was the shared homeworld for two NPRs that ended up fighting over it.
And I think killing everybody in the process.
-
When a game loads, a maximum of 10,000 past events will be loaded ...
How much it could be difficult to set this value each time?
If I reload a match after some days not playing, I confess I don't remember the details of what happened. ;D
Even if you don't, I doubt you will be reading through the last 10,000 events. If it becomes an issue in real games, I will add something, but I suspect if I hadn't said anything, no one would even notice.
Since purging the event timeline is one of the methods to increase performances along helping with database size and loading/saving times, I think a few of us would have noticed, so thanks for addition.
While on the topic, as to export the event timeline before purging is one of my tasks, which also comes with a special function on my excel sheet to show the proper date, is it possible to have an export timeline button? Only if easy, otherwise I'll carry on manually.
Thanks again.
-
I'm also feeling a little put out at the loss of information, though I do grasp that normally I wouldn't really use it for anything.
Minding, I might even write a tool to go and get it out of the database, so if you left it alone on the DB side and just fetched the last 10k, presumably it would at least be possible to still go and get the full log.
I guess really it depends on how the load time is effected by that. My understanding is most of the performance comes from loading the database fully into memory so maybe the cost is still a bit undesirable.
-
Great and useful addition for sure! I doubt how often anyone would need to go past the last 10,000 events. But I'm sure someone will make a tool that automatically writes events to a separate database as they happen so that those who really do need their entire game timeline preserved for posterity, can do so.
-
Fight your FOMO brothers ;D
-
Steve, I'm curious, what was the motivation for adding the 0.1-ton fuel tank? Not that I'm complaining, but with the 1-ton tank and the 0.5-ton MSP bay we have the necessary tools to make our tonnages end in zeroes already, so I'm curious what else could motivate this.
-
There have been times where the tonnage is round, but the speed is not... plus, seeing things like 1599.9897 under "exact size" might finally be a thing of the past.
-
plus, seeing things like 1599.9897 under "exact size" might finally be a thing of the past.
That will still happen because of armor calculations.
-
Steve, I'm curious, what was the motivation for adding the 0.1-ton fuel tank? Not that I'm complaining, but with the 1-ton tank and the 0.5-ton MSP bay we have the necessary tools to make our tonnages end in zeroes already, so I'm curious what else could motivate this.
I had a 250 ton gas-core fighter with only 2000 litres of fuel, because it is intended to operate with the mothership and that allowed me to design it with a two-shot railgun at 250 tons. When I developed Ion, I created an upgraded version. I had better reactor tech, allowing a smaller reactor, but the same fire control speed, which meant a larger fire control. The only way I could manage it was removing one of the 1000 litre fuel tanks and that made the range unacceptable. The new component allowed me to keep 800 litres of that 1000 and with improved fuel consumption tech I was able to maintain the range.
SF-1B Starfury class Fighter 250 tons 1 Crew 50.5 BP TCS 5 TH 40 EM 0
8010 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0-0 PPV 1.65
Maint Life 4.03 Years MSP 35 AFR 50% IFR 0.7% 1YR 3 5YR 52 Max Repair 20 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Beigie-Bryant-40B Particle Thrust Engine (1) Power 40 Fuel Use 885.44% Signature 40 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 2,000 Litres Range 0.16 billion km (5 hours at full power)
Copeland JC-2A Pulse Discharge Cannon (1x2) Range 48,000km TS: 8,010 km/s Power 1.5-1.5 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Douglas-Xavier DX-48-SA Tracking System (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 8,000 km/s ECCM-1 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Starfury MK I Reactor (1) Total Power Output 1.5 Exp 15%
Starfury MK II Active Sensor (1) GPS 2 Range 2m km MCR 181.7k km Resolution 1
SF-2A Starfury class Fighter 250 tons 1 Crew 59.5 BP TCS 5 TH 50 EM 0
10001 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0-0 PPV 1.65
Maint Life 3.50 Years MSP 30 AFR 50% IFR 0.7% 1YR 4 5YR 56 Max Repair 25 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Beigie-Bryant-50B Particle Thrust Engine (1) Power 50 Fuel Use 758.95% Signature 50 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 1,800 Litres Range 0.17 billion km (4 hours at full power)
Copeland JC-2A Pulse Discharge Cannon (1x2) Range 48,000km TS: 10,001 km/s Power 1.5-1.5 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Douglas-Xavier DX-48-SB Tracking System (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 10,000 km/s ECCM-2 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Starfury MK II Reactor (1) Total Power Output 1.5 Exp 15%
Starfury MK III Active Sensor (1) GPS 2 Range 2m km MCR 181.7k km Resolution 1
-
Steve, have you ever considered just letting us type in a fuel volume? It would be a lot less fiddly. It would be nice to do the same with crew volume as well.
-
Steve, have you ever considered just letting us type in a fuel volume? It would be a lot less fiddly. It would be nice to do the same with crew volume as well.
I would prefer the current system. It's easier to fiddle with tonnages by adding and/or subtracting a couple of X-size tanks or MSP bays than typing in numbers and trying to get them to match the exact right HS needed. Also, it's sometimes better to have control of the actual allocation of fuel tanks on a ship, for example I will prefer to have several smaller tanks than fewer larger ones sometimes as a form of resilience against battle damage.
Not sure why we need crew volume as that is handled automatically. MSP would make more sense though I dislike the idea for the same reasons.
-
Also, it's sometimes better to have control of the actual allocation of fuel tanks on a ship, for example I will prefer to have several smaller tanks than fewer larger ones sometimes as a form of resilience against battle damage.
But @Nuclearslurpee, my warship with one large fuel tank instead of 5 standard fuel tanks saves a whole 5BP! (Just don't tell the enemy I have no redundancy, shh!).
-
Hi,
If it let you type in a tonnage value to create a fuel tank it would make rounding your ship tonnage easy. You could also add a second value to specify the number of tanks created to fill this tonnage to allow for redundancy (at a cost of extra BP). The drawbacks would include not being able to have tanks of different sizes and requiring new tanks when refitting.
Andy
-
Also, it's sometimes better to have control of the actual allocation of fuel tanks on a ship, for example I will prefer to have several smaller tanks than fewer larger ones sometimes as a form of resilience against battle damage.
But @Nuclearslurpee, my warship with one large fuel tank instead of 5 standard fuel tanks saves a whole 5BP! (Just don't tell the enemy I have no redundancy, shh!).
I used to do this but then I noticed that not only was redundancy an issue, so was HTK of the components. Each (normal) fuel tank is, IIRC, 1 HTK, while I think a large is either 1 or 2 (and the smaller ones are 0 HTK I believe), so having a ton of them can make a ship a little more durable, and the cost difference isn't much proportional to the rest of the ship.
I actually once considered doing a mathematical analysis of designing ships to maximize HTK, mostly as a lark. IIRC you could do the same with a bunch of size 1 engines but the loss in fuel efficiency was pretty crippling.
-
Not sure why we need crew volume as that is handled automatically.
I want the option to manually select crew quarter modules so when I'm making a generic commercial hull skeleton which I'm going to branch into different types I don't have to fudge around with the (irrelevant) deployment time to make the crew quarters match up. Let's not forget that crew quarters used to be selected manually and I don't remember anybody complaining.
The in-game explanation would be the same as the fuel tank explanation, I want redundancy for carrying PoWs, for when crew quarters are destroyed, etc.
-
I've noticed a possible minor issue with the new point defense mechanics - unless Steve has already changed this in testing.
The post on "New Point Defence Mechanics" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164276#msg164276) states that:
Each Beam Fire Control is assigned a Fire Concentration from 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest and 3 the default. If this many shots are already allocated against a missile, this fire control will ignore that missile for targeting purposes.
This poses a potential problem for non-turreted beam PD weapons, primarily for small-caliber railguns. Consider a classic skirmish between the Duranium Legion (fleet speed 5,000 km/s) and the Precursors Mongolicans firing AMMs with a speed of around 72,000 km/s. A single hull-mounted railgun has a chance to hit, per shot, of (5,000 / 72,000) = 7%, which means that a salvo of ten shots, the current maximum, results in a chance of only 51.3% to shoot down a specific AMM. This represents a pretty big nerf to railgun PD which I don't think was really needed as the Railgun vs. Gauss turret dichotomy is pretty well-established and both ways are pretty balanced in strategic vs tactical benefits. Since Gauss turrets can have much higher tracking speeds, they achieve higher hit probabilities per-shot and don't suffer so much from this change - for example, a Gauss turret with 16,000 km/s tracking speed has a CTH of 22% per shot, for an expected kill rate from ten shots of 92% which seems more in-line with the intentions of the new mechanics.
I would suggest that the Fire Concentration not have a maximum value, at least for the player to set. If the NPRs use a hardcoded (in the AI code) maximum value for the sake of expediency that is probably fine. Alternatively (or perhaps complementary), a setting of '0' could mean "no maximum - allocate fire to the missile(s) with the fewest shots currently allocated", ensuring that the mechanic works as intended but volume of fire is not wasted doing nothing while ships explode.
-
I've noticed a possible minor issue with the new point defense mechanics - unless Steve has already changed this in testing.
The post on "New Point Defence Mechanics" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13090.msg164276#msg164276) states that:
Each Beam Fire Control is assigned a Fire Concentration from 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest and 3 the default. If this many shots are already allocated against a missile, this fire control will ignore that missile for targeting purposes.
This poses a potential problem for non-turreted beam PD weapons, primarily for small-caliber railguns. Consider a classic skirmish between the Duranium Legion (fleet speed 5,000 km/s) and the Precursors Mongolicans firing AMMs with a speed of around 72,000 km/s. A single hull-mounted railgun has a chance to hit, per shot, of (5,000 / 72,000) = 7%, which means that a salvo of ten shots, the current maximum, results in a chance of only 51.3% to shoot down a specific AMM. This represents a pretty big nerf to railgun PD which I don't think was really needed as the Railgun vs. Gauss turret dichotomy is pretty well-established and both ways are pretty balanced in strategic vs tactical benefits. Since Gauss turrets can have much higher tracking speeds, they achieve higher hit probabilities per-shot and don't suffer so much from this change - for example, a Gauss turret with 16,000 km/s tracking speed has a CTH of 22% per shot, for an expected kill rate from ten shots of 92% which seems more in-line with the intentions of the new mechanics.
I would suggest that the Fire Concentration not have a maximum value, at least for the player to set. If the NPRs use a hardcoded (in the AI code) maximum value for the sake of expediency that is probably fine. Alternatively (or perhaps complementary), a setting of '0' could mean "no maximum - allocate fire to the missile(s) with the fewest shots currently allocated", ensuring that the mechanic works as intended but volume of fire is not wasted doing nothing while ships explode.
I already encountered and addressed this in play test. The options are now 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and Unlimited.
-
The new change to Raiders is a good one, will make it possible to actually destroy or capture their ships if camping on the entry point.
-
Do designated targets actually take damage, or is it simulated?
-
Do designated targets actually take damage, or is it simulated?
They actually take damage, although you could design and build training missiles with no warheads or use minimal damage energy weapons. Also, if you want the damage to be 'simulated' you can use the 'SM Repair All' option.
There are two potential scenarios here. An old ship that you use for target practice rather than scrapping it - as modern navies do now - or a practice fleet engagement, for which you could design the training missiles.
-
I totally love the designated target thing, finally I can try weapons before starting mass production. :P
-
Nice change to ground unit researches which hopefully will add more variety to starting setups and early-game armies.
However, I am a little bit worried that my ground forces scientists will run out of things to do after the early-mid game, since even right now there are very few high-cost projects to focus on later in the game besides the build rate tech. Steve, do you have plans to add something more for ground forces in the later part of the game to keep things interesting and my scientists engaged? ;D
-
Nice change to ground unit researches which hopefully will add more variety to starting setups and early-game armies.
However, I am a little bit worried that my ground forces scientists will run out of things to do after the early-mid game, since even right now there are very few high-cost projects to focus on later in the game besides the build rate tech. Steve, do you have plans to add something more for ground forces in the later part of the game to keep things interesting and my scientists engaged? ;D
Yes, quite a few of the tech lines lack the higher level techs. I'll add them over time.
-
Ah relearning how to play Aurora 4x how I missed you. Hot damn am I not used to not knowing what to do in the missile design screen xD
-
Yay! New version ;D :)
-
Thank you for the early Christmas present!
-
I was planning a trip away, but my wife and I were both ill with either flu or a really bad cold and couldn't go. So, now I am finally starting to feel a little better, I found myself with some unplanned free time :)
-
I was planning a trip away, but my wife and I were both ill with either flu or a really bad cold and couldn't go. So, now I am finally starting to feel a little better, I found myself with some unplanned free time :)
Glad you are feeling better, and thanks for using your free time so well!
The Empire mining changes are a stand out change that will save me a bunch of OOG spreadsheeting :)
Can't wait to try out the new PD, now the real challenge - resisting starting a new campain for a few days!
-
Looking at decoy and AMM logic now, it seems like there's a (potentially micro-heavy) niche for 'duster' AMMs that throw the maximum possible number of warheads regardless of how weak they are. Fired as a first AMM wave against incoming missiles, these wouldn't have much chance of killing incoming ASMs, but would be very efficient at removing all their decoys since decoy removal doesn't depend on a damage check. Thus stripped the shipkillers should be comparatively easy for more-typical AMMs or point defense beam weapons to stop.
-
Good thing there's a minimum overhead of MSP size cost for each additional warhead then, I guess.
-
Looking at decoy and AMM logic now, it seems like there's a (potentially micro-heavy) niche for 'duster' AMMs that throw the maximum possible number of warheads regardless of how weak they are. Fired as a first AMM wave against incoming missiles, these wouldn't have much chance of killing incoming ASMs, but would be very efficient at removing all their decoys since decoy removal doesn't depend on a damage check. Thus stripped the shipkillers should be comparatively easy for more-typical AMMs or point defense beam weapons to stop.
Each extra warhead costs 0.1 MSP of non-warhead space, which limits the practical number of warheads.
-
Looking at decoy and AMM logic now, it seems like there's a (potentially micro-heavy) niche for 'duster' AMMs that throw the maximum possible number of warheads regardless of how weak they are. Fired as a first AMM wave against incoming missiles, these wouldn't have much chance of killing incoming ASMs, but would be very efficient at removing all their decoys since decoy removal doesn't depend on a damage check. Thus stripped the shipkillers should be comparatively easy for more-typical AMMs or point defense beam weapons to stop.
Each extra warhead costs 0.1 MSP of non-warhead space, which limits the practical number of warheads.
Good thing there's a minimum overhead of MSP size cost for each additional warhead then, I guess.
I'm aware, but I'm expecting the difference in warhead count between 'maximize chances of killing a shipkiller' and 'maximize expected number of decoys stripped' will be significant.
Though it would get smaller as warhead tech improves.
-
I'm aware, but I'm expecting the difference in warhead count between 'maximize chances of killing a shipkiller' and 'maximize expected number of decoys stripped' will be significant.
The flip side is that opponents can simply use missiles without decoys in which case your 'stripper' missiles will be nothing more than less-effective AMMs. Should make for some interesting tactical brinksmanship in missile designs. ;D
Though it would get smaller as warhead tech improves.
The MSP per additional warhead is a fixed 0.1, so the improvement is very small especially with fractional warheads.
-
I checked the forum just for funsies and I did not expect a Thanksgiving/Christmas present. Awesome! Thanks for the hard work on this.
-
I checked the forum just for funsies and I did not expect a Thanksgiving/Christmas present. Awesome! Thanks for the hard work on this.
I second this! I have slowly been putting together a new campaign, but I've been distracted by various other things, like Starfield and the new Baldur's Gate. I was getting rather irritated with my procrastination on this, but now my slowness has been justified. I can now start over in the new version with a setup that works better for how I want to start my campaign.
Thanks Steve!
-
I'm aware, but I'm expecting the difference in warhead count between 'maximize chances of killing a shipkiller' and 'maximize expected number of decoys stripped' will be significant.
The flip side is that opponents can simply use missiles without decoys in which case your 'stripper' missiles will be nothing more than less-effective AMMs. Should make for some interesting tactical brinksmanship in missile designs. ;D
My impression is that offensive missiles without decoys aren't expected to be credible...
But yes, by design the stripper missiles are expected to be ineffective against literally anything except decoys. Removing decoys is the only possible reason for them.
Though it would get smaller as warhead tech improves.
The MSP per additional warhead is a fixed 0.1, so the improvement is very small especially with fractional warheads.
For best results in killing missiles, you want a warhead strength of target size (MSP)/20 (max 1). That can vary quite a lot, but could easily be 0.1 MSP of warhead per, more if your enemy is using big torpedoes and your warhead tech is on the lower end but no higher than 0.5 MSP. For killing decoys, you want a warhead strength of as close to zero as you can get without not being counted as a hit. So including the multi-warhead cost, the missile-killing warheads might be anything from maybe 10% heavier (high warhead tech vs. small missiles) to more than twice as heavy each.
Might be a narrow window where the multiplier is big enough to warrant consideration is very narrow though.
-
My impression is that offensive missiles without decoys aren't expected to be credible...
This isn't my impression at all. Yes, decoys should be a fairly strong option, particularly for larger missiles, but Aurora is based on the concept of creating interesting decisions for the player rather than forcing the player to do one specific thing, so missiles without decoys should be credible because they can use that MSP to do other things.
Of course, even if this is the intent it's certainly possible that decoys end up being overwhelmingly the best option in practice, and we as players will find that out in playtesting. If so, Steve can certainly make adjustments as needed.
-
The intent wasn't to make larger missiles necessarily the best option - just to make them a credible option and add a lot more variety to missile design. Small missile spam is still viable (having been on the receiving end during testing). NPRs will use a greater variety of missile sizes and types than before, so you need to take account of that when designing defences.