Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
I'm interested in an advisor role if you are still recruiting. I'll join whoever needs an advisor the most, or whoever is most interested in shenanigans.
22
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by nakorkren on Yesterday at 05:18:04 PM »
Currently you can turn on/off display of planets, asteroids, moons, etc as well as their names and orbits on the tactical screen, but not comets/comet names for some reason. I would like to be able to declutter the display of Sol, which has a ton of comets.
23
Spoilers / Re: 2.0 is this a raider I see before me?
« Last post by boolybooly on Yesterday at 05:14:32 PM »
I have to say its really hotting up now, literally as Sol Disaster heating @1% is also in play. I am having to use everything I have learned about the game so far to avoid the destruction of my chattels. Because of the spoilers I am making an AAR here.

A single raider scout was followed by a three ship fleet with a big tanker, which I had to face with 9 salvos of third generation missiles plus a few odds and sods. The missiles were big slow and not very damaging size 6, speed 17k, warhead 5, to hit @3k-94%.

I disabled the three destroyers which bought some time but the suspected tanker was really ... tanky, as you might expect and a damage sponge which soaked up all my spare missiles. As luck would have it I had a scout ship in overhaul and I had taken it out to avoid the expected blitz and sent it away, the lone tanker set about trying to ram it, which was alarming and yet kind of amusing.

I can imagine this 50kt tanker trying to ram a tiny 1kt scout travelling at 100km/s due to the overhaul exit penalty as the plucky and inventive but thoroughly corrupt and not entirely competent engineering crew (this empire name theme is based on gangster ranks like gangboss and gangleader) were frantically trying to get the engine back online and the pilot was dodging and weaving using skills developed as getaway vehicle driver to avoid the massive blundering hulk piloted by an insanely vindictive, possibly psychotic raider.

However the pilot succeeded in doubling back to lure the tanker within range of the planetary guns of Earth (18 lasers) and they eventually made a wreck of the tanker. This was salvaged for 1.5k research in armor which was welcome as a new generation of smaller faster and more powerful and cheaper missiles was researching along with new orbital missile platforms. It seemed to be going well until the size of the next raiding fleet became apparent, 14x 10kt destroyers each with around 20 shots capable of 4 damage at close range and 1 damage at 160k, I figure it must be a 20cm railgun x5, very potent and perhaps something unique to the raiders. I want to capture some but current beam tech cannot compete so its missile doctrine all the way for now.

I am not sure the empire can beat this fleet as things stand, not enough missiles and long reload times. Luckily I have figured out a way to use their berserker mentality against them and have sent my one FAC missile boat 'Citrine' to lure them away as the OV scout did. It was specifically engineered to win a race against the raider destroyers observed top speed but at some cost, it is working as a lure and winning but only has 11bn range remaining and I have to figure out how to use this and the time it offers to defeat the armada.

All the while the Sol Disaster is in effect, the system is growing hotter by 1% per 5 days. The only thing stopping Earth from boiling is a fleet of 45 terraforming modules in 9 stations with 5 each. If the Aliens destroy these it could get very nasty very quickly and might even mean defeat and the extinction of humanity and its criminal ways, so they must be stopped, of course.

The gangster empire has only had time to partially scout 4 other systems and found planets with high terraforming rates and potential population sizes which could take the population of Earth. Alpha Centauri BIII is already being prepared by a terraforming station and has a small human colony of 120k currently in infrastructure based accomodation. Another world, Sirius AI, will soon have its own terraformer station too just as soon as I can get a portal jump tender station to Sirius JP. The single tug is working overtime.

As if that was not enough there is also a mineral shortage looming. All the empires original shipyards were destroyed by the raiders and building new ones is expensive. So these challenges must be met and overcome on a shoestring budget. I am not certain of success but that makes it all the more fun to try.
 
25
C# Suggestions / Re: Missile Based STO
« Last post by Aloriel on Yesterday at 03:10:33 PM »
The OPs proposal is sound and balanced IMO.
26
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Last post by Aloriel on Yesterday at 02:44:20 PM »
Could we get an option to add X slipways? It'd be nice for those 1000 ton facilities designed to build FACs in bulk.
27
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.0.2 Bugs Thread
« Last post by Warer on Yesterday at 01:22:40 PM »
Single Weapon BFCs limit to one weapon isn't respected by Auto Assign FC. I tested it by manually dragging and dropping and the pop up that tells you you can't assign more than one weapon to an SW BFC appeared.
28
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.0.2 Bugs Thread
« Last post by Destragon on Yesterday at 12:34:11 PM »
Is it a bug that parent ground HQ commanders don't give their production bonus to subordinate construction vehicle formations? (2.0.2)

I have 5 formations of ground construction vehicles, each with an HQ. When I assign a commander with a 30% production bonus to one of those HQs, I can see in the industry tab of the planet that the vehicles are now producing more BP.
But when I assign that commander to the 25k HQ that is in charge of those 5 formations, then the vehicles don't get any BP bonus from it.

Maybe I'm missing something about how ground HQ chain of commands work, but I didn't see an info post about it in the C# changelist megathread.

Edit:
Found a minor typo, the game says "Subartic" instead of "Subarctic".
29
C# Suggestions / Re: Missile Based STO
« Last post by Destragon on Yesterday at 12:07:09 PM »
I would like missile STOs so that the conventional empires can finally start with ICBMs again.
30
C# Suggestions / Re: Missile Based STO
« Last post by Droll on Yesterday at 11:45:49 AM »
I did a quick search of the forum for Missile STOs and came up with nothing, So i wanted to share what i was thinking. If anyone knows of a post/discussion concerning them please share it, otherwise i would like to see your opinions/counter-points etc.

The Basics:
Missile STO's would be built based of Box launchers. This would make them "realistic" but also work as a balance mechanism.

The STO's Mass = STO Chasse + (Mass of Box Launcher * # of tubes), a STO can be  designed with 1,2,4 or 8 tubes that would all fire simultaneously. (Number of tubes are up for debate).

Why I think it is balanced:
1) As box launchers, they would have a re-load in Hrs, not seconds like other STOs. Therefor you get Range and Alpha at the expense of DPS and PD capabilities.
2) Like all missile systems, they have the added cost of using Missiles and they are susceptible to PD.

Possible additional balance options:
1) Since STO Missiles would have to fight gravity & air resistance, having a range modifier (for example x.5), if possible, could be used to semi-nerf the ranges of missiles.

Other benefits:
1) Makes NPRs a bit tougher to assault.
2) Adds an extra layer to layered defenses.
3) Could help protect NPRs from *Spoilers*


Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?

Discussions regarding MSTOs have happened before but I don't think they ever got a dedicated thread. Regardless instead of having a flat debuff on range I would suggest that it scale with the gravity and atmospheric pressure of the system body they are on. Though idk how that works with TN lore.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk