Aurora 4x
Fiction => C# Test Campaigns => Steve's Fiction => Aurora => Aftermath Campaign => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on May 07, 2019, 09:00:41 AM
-
Please post any comments or questions here.
I've posted two of the five factions so far. I'll try to get the other three done this week and then start the campaign.
-
Those Kirov Battlecruisers are exquisitely terrible. The Federation should be very, very happy Mars isn't in the conquering mood.
-
what's with the lack of CIWS?
-
I agree with those Kirovs. They would decisively lose a Missile engagement with Mars and would never get into laser range where their weight of fire might make a difference.
-
Even if the Kirov is technologically inferior in many ways they don't need to chase anything if you defend or invade something.
There also are 6 Kirov versus 3 Martian cruisers. The Kirov also is larger with tons of armour.
You can't really judge th8ng one on one without any context.
-
I agree with those Kirovs. They would decisively lose a Missile engagement with Mars and would never get into laser range where their weight of fire might make a difference.
I was wondering what design theme to use for the US/Russia faction, so I was reading a really good book I have on Soviet warships...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Soviet-Warships-Present-John-Jordan/dp/1854091174
After reading the Kirov section, I wondered if I could really get everything onto a single hull. Designing ships is fun if you don't have to worry about actual combat effectiveness :)
Besides, with no real combat experience, they probably seem fine to the Jovians. Very large and threatening. I'm sure they will adjust based on combat experience :)
-
Even if the Kirov is technologically 8nferior in many ways they don't need to chase anything if you defend or invade something.
There also are 6 Kirov versus 3 Martian cruisers. The Kirov also is larger with tons of armour.
You can't really judge th8ng one on one without any context.
Yes, true. I think there are situations where they will be fine. While specialization works well, not having to build 3-4 specialized designs means you can build more of your primary general purpose ship. It will be interesting to see what happens.
-
Not a fan of ships that have to rely on other ships to fill gaping holes in their capability.
-
I agree with those Kirovs. They would decisively lose a Missile engagement with Mars and would never get into laser range where their weight of fire might make a difference.
I was wondering what design theme to use for the US/Russia faction, so I was reading a really good book I have on Soviet warships...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Soviet-Warships-Present-John-Jordan/dp/1854091174
After reading the Kirov section, I wondered if I could really get everything onto a single hull. Designing ships is fun if you don't have to worry about actual combat effectiveness :)
Besides, with no real combat experience, they probably seem fine to the Jovians. Very large and threatening. I'm sure they will adjust based on combat experience :)
It seems you and me both do a lot of background research.
For my current USSR-campaign, I spent about a week going through the military structure and organization of soviet strategic missile troops (in other words; ICBM batteries), soviet army and soviet navy in order to make a believable OOB for ground troops and setting up the organization tab.
I've used them as a template in other short-lived campaign where I tried out the 1982 Able Archer scenario in a multiple-NPR earth start.
Keep up the good work and I really appreciate the way you keep things "realistic" in the context and play things out as anyone would best assume they would in such situations.
-
I wonder how many factions we will have? Japanese on Titan and Indians + Chinese in the asteroids? I wonder if anyone went to Venus or Mercury.
-
I wonder how many factions we will have? Japanese on Titan and Indians + Chinese in the asteroids? I wonder if anyone went to Venus or Mercury.
Earth, Titan and Asteroids at the moment. I did consider a sixth faction on Mercury but not decided yet. I'll see how I go with the others.
-
Do you intend to carry out ground combat in this campaign?
-
Looking a bit more into it I think a hypothetical fight between Mars and Jupiter gets decided by how effective Jupiter's point defense ends up being. The Martian missile range is almost half again as big as Jupiter's. Unless the River and/or the Molniya class of ships can get within range of a Martian fleet without being detected and then take out the Martian escorts. The Molniyas have the speed to be a big threat to a Martian fleet assuming that Martian sensors can't pick up a 500 ton ship at 25 million kms.
In an open space battle between the Martian fleet and the Jovian Federation fleet I give it to Mars every time unless the Molniyas can sneak in and take out the Sagittariuses early. I do see combat bringing the two philosophies closer together than they currently are though. Either way this has been the most exciting bit of papercrafting I have done in Aurora in a long time.
-
I really, really like how completely terrible the Kirov is. It's exactly the kind of thing designed time and time again by committees. Exquisite roleplay.
The fact that the missiles onboard are so terrible that Mars' ships could probably afford to armour tank (one missile design has a ~44% chance to hit a Martian ship; the other has a ~49% chance) just really puts the fine point on it.
-
Oooh yes! French communism soviet faction!!! I loved that!
En avant!
-
Yeah, we haven't seen French Communism in a long time! ;D
Now I'm really curious what the remaining factions are like.
-
I'm hoping for a primarily beam-armed faction, with heavily-armoured battlewagons designed (theoretically, anyway) to survive the enemy's missile barrage while closing to deliver a short-range pounding.
-
I'm hoping for a primarily beam-armed faction, with heavily-armed battlewagons designed (theoretically, anyway) to survive the enemy's missile barrage while closing to deliver a short-range pounding.
Yes, that is Faction #5 :)
-
A Beltalowda (belters) faction, yes! I'm hope they develop a boarding FAC to take prizes and enhance their space superiority design.
also any chance of seeing the ship design for the Xian class orbital habitat?
-
A Beltalowda (belters) faction, yes! I'm hope they develop a boarding FAC to take prizes and enhance their space superiority design.
also any chance of seeing the ship design for the Xian class orbital habitat?
Xian class Orbital Habitat 12,513,200 tons 760 Crew 5,489.9 BP TCS 250,264 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s No Armour Shields 0-0 HTK 648 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
MSP 0 Max Repair 200 MSP
Habitation Capacity 5,000,000
Shao Xiao Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months
-
Xian class Orbital Habitat 12,513,200 tons 760 Crew 5,489.9 BP TCS 250,264 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s No Armour Shields 0-0 HTK 648 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
MSP 0 Max Repair 200 MSP
Habitation Capacity 5,000,000
Shao Xiao Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months
If you board a habitat like that, do you troops fight against the 760 crew or are the 5,000,000 inhabitants included as defending combatants?
-
If you board a habitat like that, do you troops fight against the 760 crew or are the 5,000,000 inhabitants included as defending combatants?
Hopefully the latter, because Aurora just isn't the same without the possibility to commit horrible war-crimes.
-
Xian class Orbital Habitat 12,513,200 tons 760 Crew 5,489.9 BP TCS 250,264 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s No Armour Shields 0-0 HTK 648 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
MSP 0 Max Repair 200 MSP
Habitation Capacity 5,000,000
Shao Xiao Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months
If you board a habitat like that, do you troops fight against the 760 crew or are the 5,000,000 inhabitants included as defending combatants?
I hadn't considered that situation :)
At the moment, just the crew unless I add code for the alternative.
-
It is a tough thing to answer, because in order for those 5 million, 10 million for homo asteroides, inhabitants to contribute to the fight they would have to have personal weapons. That would be highly dependent on the culture of the inhabitants.
The 5 million could certainly act as a sort of reserve battalion the replaces losses in the 760 crew members however that would potentially need to discount weapons during fighting and a lack of training. It all starts to get complex.
-
I'm pretty sure I'd bet on the five million people with sticks & rocks over the 760 with modern weapons.
-
I think I will probably be rooting for the colonials. They're in an interesting situation, and I've always liked Steve's FAC based navies. Plus this one is spread out so they won't have all their carriers slaughtered by a surprise attack in Earth orbit (I hope).
-
FACs always die, it's as unavoidable as the death of China. 8)
And thanks to that little hint about genetic modification, the Japanese-Titan are not only a separate faction but a separate race too.
-
Little bit of nitpicking here, but I believe it would technically be the fourth French Revolution, since there were two more in 1830 and 1848. You could also make a case that the PRT is the sixth (people's) Republic.
-
I'm pretty sure I'd bet on the five million people with sticks & rocks over the 760 with modern weapons.
I'd probably go with the 760 with modern weapons, because they're a cohesive whole who came looking for a fight while the other side sees them as big and scary and probably feels completely unprepared for that kind of thing.
Which I bring up more to say that any population added to the 'crew' for defence purposes should probably be very low damage, health, and morale, even if there are theoretically gobs of them.
-
sidestepping the war crime potential. if you capture the habitat do you capture the population as well or do the population get redistributed throughout the original colony i.e going onto the surface and other orbital habitats?
-
Looking at modern figures there will also be some police or similar in the station capable of functioning as a paramilitary force looking at modern figures the figure per 100,00 is
USA (Big City ) 200-250
Spain 530
UK 210-260
Belarus 1400
Vatican 15000
So a colony with 5. million should produce some number of lightly armed defenders say around 10,000 with very light weaponry and probably around a 100 of those armed with typical infantry weapons
-
Until you realize that those people aren't simulated in Aurora ground combat anyway.
I'd say that if you want more combatants on the defense you need to invest in actual facilities for them, by building habitats with civilian troop transport components hosting units of marines. Of course, the fiercer the fighting the more likely it is that something important gets hit, like a habitation module, lowering the number of people that can be supported by the habitat...
-
Yes it just occurred to me that allowing a militia on an Orbital colony would really require allowing one on any colony which makes it a much larger issue and so perfectly reasonable to ignore. It may be interesting to have a mechanic for defensive militia units . Based on modern reservist formations maybe allow stockpiling of equipment for a militia unit which activates when a colony is invaded while paying a small amount for the maintenance of the unit (a tenth normal ?) for a cadre and maintenance
-
sidestepping the war crime potential. if you capture the habitat do you capture the population as well or do the population get redistributed throughout the original colony i.e going onto the surface and other orbital habitats?
Population is tied to the colony, not the habitat. Think of the habitat as infrastructure. So the population remains part of the colony and has to be handled by the remaining habitats and infrastructure.
-
Could you not just add troop transport module and fill them with lightly armed and armoured troops in C#... it is a commercial module in C#?
This would work for RP purposes.
-
One thing that I wonder is that no faction seem to consider smaller crafts a threat as none have developed any sensors or fire-controls to attack them?
-
Settings like these where humanity devolves into a series of abhuman species are fairly unsettling.
-
Settings like these where humanity devolves into a series of abhuman species are fairly unsettling.
I don't know, the Titanians look mighty fine to me. ;D
-
Settings like these where humanity devolves into a series of abhuman species are fairly unsettling.
Abhuman!? I'll show you abhuman, Inner scum!
-
Settings like these where humanity devolves into a series of abhuman species are fairly unsettling.
Abhuman!? I'll show you abhuman, Inner scum!
Shut up, belter, or we increase the tax on mining permits again.
-
Have you renamed/changed from a system where you construct jump gates at jump points to one where you stabilize jump points already?
How will you treat randomly stabilized jump points in fiction? Just as a naturally occurring phenomenon or definite proof aliens exist(ed)?
-
Have you renamed/changed from a system where you construct jump gates at jump points to one where you stabilize jump points already?
How will you treat randomly stabilized jump points in fiction? Just as a naturally occurring phenomenon or definite proof aliens exist(ed)?
Aurora has.
Steve hasn't said for this campaign, and there's no reason the explanation needs to be the same from campaign to campaign.
-
How many of these empires are NPRs?
-
How many of these empires are NPRs?
All 5 are player races.
-
ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 17.7m km
What is this thing, and how does it work?
-
It's replaced espionage teams, if it detects a planet's EM signature it collect intelligence from it.
-
Probably a size 1 EM sensor.
-
ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 17.7m km
What is this thing, and how does it work?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109678#msg109678
-
Looking at the screenshot you posted in the changes list, the one about factions overview...
I have to say that Terra seems in a much more comfortable position than the other factions. They might be behind in tech, but wow the economical and industrial power they have.
Of course that would not help them if the other factions decided to ally to kill them...
I have to say, this campaign looks really good. I'm so looking forward to C# Aurora . Sorry, I had to say it ;D
Anyway, it would be really nice to have the factions overview every couple of years or so, that way we readers can have a better idea of what is going on :)
-
Looking forward to seeing a planetary assault happen. I can see Terra try and bring their full weight down only to have their troop ships get wrecked in transit.
-
Terra is going to have to invest substantially in research to not fall behind further, but they've got a massive factory advantage. Something like 50% more than their closest rival.
-
What are the major obstacles preventing a game setup where the others nations are handled by the computer and not by the player himself?
-
What are the major obstacles preventing a game setup where the others nations are handled by the computer and not by the player himself?
Mainly, diplomacy and AI planetary invasions at the moment. Few other tweaks as well.
Last test campaign is likely to be one player race and several AI races in Sol.
-
Oooooh shiny! :o
How strange is the world. I think your game is my most anticipated game, before Triumph Planetfall and any other AAA franchise!
-
I think only Fallout:New Vegas II could beat C# Aurora for me.
-
@Father Tim
Now with an even BIGGER iron on your hip! :D
Fallout: New California is out for the F:NV base game. It's not New Vegas II, but It's definitely hooge.
-
provided war doesn't break out within a couple of years my money is on the commies, that industry and pop advantage is to large (especially since the main long term limitation on growth is pop)
-
Same, although at the same time it's no longer possible to grow populations without limit.
Still, Earth's the biggest chunk of singular real estate, and they are very well situated as long as they can find exo solar colony space to flat out dominate the remaining nations in Sol.
-
I just hope we don't see the "evacuate from Sol" trend pop up again. It's a recurring trend in Steve's campaigns where if multiple factions are in Sol, they'll have a big war, then realize that having their main population and most of their industry and shipyards in Sol is a terrible weakness, so some of them start evacuating, and thus don't try to start anything while they're proceeding with the evacuation. The problem being that an evacuation on this scale takes forever and thus by the time they're done Steve has usually stopped the campaign because nothing was happening anymore.
-
I just hope we don't see the "evacuate from Sol" trend pop up again. It's a recurring trend in Steve's campaigns where if multiple factions are in Sol, they'll have a big war, then realize that having their main population and most of their industry and shipyards in Sol is a terrible weakness, so some of them start evacuating, and thus don't try to start anything while they're proceeding with the evacuation. The problem being that an evacuation on this scale takes forever and thus by the time they're done Steve has usually stopped the campaign because nothing was happening anymore.
This scenario looks different in that they're not all on the same planet, at least. Different systems would still be much more defensible but it's not quite as suicidal as a war when they're all in orbit of Earth.
-
I just hope we don't see the "evacuate from Sol" trend pop up again. It's a recurring trend in Steve's campaigns where if multiple factions are in Sol, they'll have a big war, then realize that having their main population and most of their industry and shipyards in Sol is a terrible weakness, so some of them start evacuating, and thus don't try to start anything while they're proceeding with the evacuation. The problem being that an evacuation on this scale takes forever and thus by the time they're done Steve has usually stopped the campaign because nothing was happening anymore.
This scenario looks different in that they're not all on the same planet, at least. Different systems would still be much more defensible but it's not quite as suicidal as a war when they're all in orbit of Earth.
True, but this campaign is based on the Solarian Empires campaign and it was pretty clear there that it was what Steve was going for. I guess we'll see how it goes.
-
Given Earth's apparently fairly trotskyist outlook (or maybe just aggressive expansionist outlook which has never really been present in real communist countries so I'll go with trotskyist) it would be kind of dumb for the other nations to just let themselves get picked off one by one. If earth becomes belligerant or a very clear threat to the rest of the solar system I have to imagine they would present a united front to them, so I don't think it'll be as easy as people are making out.
-
'Agressive expansionist' and 'something communist countries have never done.' Right.
Leaving the other politics around, I can easily believe the other countries in the campaign would let the communists eat up one or two other nations before they grow wise regarding the matter. Historically that sort of thing tended to happen, especially when they didn't like who got annexed.
-
'Agressive expansionist' and 'something communist countries have never done.' Right.
Leaving the other politics around, I can easily believe the other countries in the campaign would let the communists eat up one or two other nations before they grow wise regarding the matter. Historically that sort of thing tended to happen, especially when they didn't like who got annexed.
Feel free to provide examples.
On the second thing, generally not when the parties involved were major powers. In the real world we have hundreds of nations and someone gobbling up a minor irrelevant country is permitted if a power doesn't have an appetite for war. But when dealing with major geopolitical threats annexing other powerful nations that make them a gigantic threat, other countries tend to react to that.
-
The Soviet Union in WW2 taking the Baltic States and chunks of Poland and Finland, following WW2 forcibly establishing and maintaining control over Eastern Europe, China taking over Tibet, North Korea invading South Korea, North Vietnam invading South Vietnam, the many, many Soviet funded and supported rebellions and revolutionaries throughout the world, often with the express purpose of establishing a government supportive of and subservient to the USSR...
No, communist countries have never been expansionist.
I can't easily recall instances where large nations fought and the loser was flat out annexed, but it was very common for such wars to conclude with the loser ceding territory and thus economic power to the victor, whom absorbed that and grew stronger. Admittedly not a situation easily established here in this game due to the game mechanics.
-
following WW2 forcibly establishing and maintaining control over Eastern Europe,
So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).
North Korea invading South Korea [...] North Vietnam invading South Vietnam,
Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.
the many, many Soviet funded and supported rebellions and revolutionaries throughout the world, often with the express purpose of establishing a government supportive of and subservient to the USSR...
Pics or it didn't happen.
Most "Communist plots" only existed in American conspiracy theories; the Soviets were exceedingly fair-weather friends to anti-colonial groups. (Also, too, most colonial governments that those groups were revolting against were Antebellum Dixie style slave-trading, plantation owning swine, who absolutely deserved everything the revolutionaries could do to them, but that's another story.)
-
Slight delay in the campaign while I work through my addiction to Battletech (new expansion). Should be back to normal in a few days :)
-
So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).
I'll give this is the case for Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, but Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland? The Soviet Union was very eager to reestablish the hegemony held by Tsarist Russia over Eastern Europe, even in the Balkans where they failed because the communist government there rejected their influence.
And speaking of overtly genocidal aggressors, the USSR. Just ask the Ukraine in particular.
Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.
Yes, that is aggression. The partition had already occurred, and diplomatic answers to that issue were available. Not easy and likely to take a long time to be effective, but available. Especially since you should not make the mistake of presuming that there was only one foreign power involved in those partitions or suppressing inconvenient plebiscites. South Vietnam and South Korea would be just as justified to strike out against the Soviet backed North Vietnam and North Korea under that assumption.
And no, the United States of America were not the aggressors in the American Civil War because they shot back against the Confederacy. The Confederacy was the aggressor because the negotiated peace that was available, the Missouri compromise would've eventually resulted in a delegated plebiscite that would decide the matter. It's just that the slave states had realized that the situation was such that the climate in most of the USA was not supportive of the sort of agriculture that supports slave based production practices, which meant that by the time the plebiscite would be called they'd lose the vote.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Most "Communist plots" only existed in American conspiracy theories; the Soviets were exceedingly fair-weather friends to anti-colonial groups. (Also, too, most colonial governments that those groups were revolting against were Antebellum Dixie style slave-trading, plantation owning swine, who absolutely deserved everything the revolutionaries could do to them, but that's another story.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_resistance_in_Chile_(1973%E2%80%931990)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Malaysia_(1968%E2%80%9389)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Sarawak (specific component of the insurgency in Malaysia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_uprising_of_1935 (the ComIntern supporting the uprising were primarily led by the USSR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Uprising (ComIntern influencing the revolutionaries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand
Right, there were no communist plots to establish USSR backed and friendly governments. And this is just the USSR backed ones, other communist governments also did a few. That the targets of the rebellions in question were scum does not mean that the USSR did not back them with the expectation of not getting a loyal puppet/friendly allied government in return, along with certain other benefits you usually get from grateful governments you are keeping in power.
-
So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).
And speaking of overtly genocidal aggressors, the USSR. Just ask the Ukraine in particular.
You really do not want to go down the garden path of equating ####sm and Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe (and Ukraine in particular). That particular branch of holocaust denial carries water for some seriously unpleasant people.
Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.
Yes, that is aggression. The partition had already occurred, and diplomatic answers to that issue were available. Not easy and likely to take a long time to be effective, but available. Especially since you should not make the mistake of presuming that there was only one foreign power involved in those partitions or suppressing inconvenient plebiscites. South Vietnam and South Korea would be just as justified to strike out against the Soviet backed North Vietnam and North Korea under that assumption.
And no, the United States of America were not the aggressors in the American Civil War because they shot back against the Confederacy. The Confederacy was the aggressor because the negotiated peace that was available, the Missouri compromise would've eventually resulted in a delegated plebiscite that would decide the matter. It's just that the slave states had realized that the situation was such that the climate in most of the USA was not supportive of the sort of agriculture that supports slave based production practices, which meant that by the time the plebiscite would be called they'd lose the vote.
But this is precisely the situation in both Korea and Viet Nam as well - the South had a diplomatic option available, it's just that this option involved a plebiscite that they knew they would lose. Because, like Dixie, they were run by slave-trading swine who were generally hated, and relied on Japanese war criminals and (in the case of RVN) river pirates and heroin smugglers to prop up their regimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_resistance_in_Chile_(1973%E2%80%931990)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Malaysia_(1968%E2%80%9389)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Sarawak (specific component of the insurgency in Malaysia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_uprising_of_1935 (the ComIntern supporting the uprising were primarily led by the USSR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Uprising (ComIntern influencing the revolutionaries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand
Right, there were no communist plots to establish USSR backed and friendly governments. And this is just the USSR backed ones, other communist governments also did a few. That the targets of the rebellions in question were scum does not mean that the USSR did not back them with the expectation of not getting a loyal puppet/friendly allied government in return, along with certain other benefits you usually get from grateful governments you are keeping in power.
Every single insurgency on that list - without exception - was either countries run by rural kakistocracies that make Ancien Regime France look progressive by comparison (and are you really going to argue that the French Revolution was a foreign plot against the Bourbon dynasty?), or against explicitly, avowedly Fascist governments. Calling support for insurgencies against avowed Fascists "aggression" is like calling the Free French terrorists and claiming that supporting the Free French was an act of aggression on part of the United States during WWII.
(On a side note, half of these were barely even Communist insurgencies; it's just that they were fighting against a regime that was backed by the US, so they went to the other guys when the time came to pick a brand name for their franchise.)
-
I feel like arguments over revolutionary communism should probably not happen in this thread
-
You really do not want to go down the garden path of equating ####sm and Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe (and Ukraine in particular). That particular branch of holocaust denial carries water for some seriously unpleasant people.
I note you did not even attempt to defend the USSR's actions, but Just Another Dude is right, this is not the place to discuss revolutionary communism. As such I will not continue on that.
But it is also not the place to level insults at another, and you leveled quite the insult at me by putting these particular words in my mouth. I expect an apology.
-
You really do not want to go down the garden path of equating ####sm and Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe (and Ukraine in particular). That particular branch of holocaust denial carries water for some seriously unpleasant people.
I note you did not even attempt to defend the USSR's actions, but Just Another Dude is right, this is not the place to discuss revolutionary communism. As such I will not continue on that.
But it is also not the place to level insults at another, and you leveled quite the insult at me by putting these particular words in my mouth. I expect an apology.
Please accept my apologies. I did not mean to accuse you of actually were equating Communism with ####sm.
I was merely (clumsily) trying to point out that there are people out there who do spread such lies, and those of us who are not need to take some care not to be mistaken as lending legitimacy to their drivel. In much the same way those who legitimately criticize Saudi Arabia need to take care to not carry rhetorical water for generalized Islamophobia, or those who talk about drug cartels need to take care not to lend rhetorical credence to generalized anti-Latino racism.
-
I'll say it slightly less politely.
Can you guys please take this argument about Communism or whatever somewhere else so those of us waiting for Steve or other people interested in the AAR to post don't get all excited about updates only to see you're still at it?
-
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10420.0
Just to explain my point and can continue the debate there if you so desire.
-
New post ! Nice !
-
Yeah the People's Republic of Terra is probably going to have to flex its military muscle in order to secure extrasolar mineral deposits, since it's well on its way to being the last to survey and claim any system. We might see an early war. Maybe it won't even take place in the solar system. Also if the spy ship are discovered people are going to start asking a lot of questions....And it might just spark a massive paranoia crisis in Sol. (I can already imagine the rings of patrol crafts and jumpy officers seeing something blip on their sensors and obliterate a civilian ship that had forgotten to turn on it's transponder).
-
This is quite interesting.
I rather hope Steve will find some "Roleplay" reasons not to have wars early on. I am much more interested, for now, in the expansion process. Also the explorarion, because I hope to see an NPR rather soon.
The systems in the immediate vicinity of Sol do not have much minerals. But well, maybe they have jump points situates in such a way that other systems behind them are "close" to sol
Very much looking forward to further updates.
Incidentally, I think Terra is looking stronger and stronger. They may have lower tech, but those numbers.... even the military is quite large. Of course, if they were to attack someone else, other powers might jump on in...
-
All aspects of the game are interesting and Steves AAR:s are always great reads, almost as good as playing the game myself. But what I really hope for now is a war involving both space and planetside fighting. I think this campaign got a near perfect setup to make that happen.
-
I'm really hoping for some "low-intensity conflict" over some of those resource-rich asteroids, or maybe an "accident" involving some live-fire exercises and the ELINT spy ships. I think it would be great to see two or three powers with an unspoken agreement to keep all conflict outside of the Sol system, but fight some nasty brush wars in Luytens or Wolf 359.
-
If I were playing Terra, I'd bide my time until either Mars or Jove got stuck in with some unlucky NPR, then descend on the homeworld(s) with my troop carriers while fleet assets are away.
Contrariwise, as Mars or Jove I'd be really paranoid about Terra doing just that; maybe even to the point of some pre-emptive strikes on Terra to cripple the industry to maintain my advantage.
-
I hope we get a shooting war with both space and ground action in Sol before the powers start evacuating their assets outside of Sol. 8)
-
I want the Jovians to lose their smeg when they're big scary ships get swatted.
-
I hope we get a shooting war with both space and ground action in Sol before the powers start evacuating their assets outside of Sol. 8)
Yeah, I hope they don't try to evacuate. In every campaign in which Steve has done that the evacuation ended the game, as no power dared a war, and those evacuations took forever, so you just had several years of absolutely nothing interesting happening and Steve ended the campaign.
-
I hope we get a shooting war with both space and ground action in Sol before the powers start evacuating their assets outside of Sol. 8)
Yeah, I hope they don't try to evacuate. In every campaign in which Steve has done that the evacuation ended the game, as no power dared a war, and those evacuations took forever, so you just had several years of absolutely nothing interesting happening and Steve ended the campaign.
There is no real pressure to evacuate, except for perhaps the Coalition who are out of space to easily grow and have vulnerable populations, although with over sixty large orbital habitats, they have much more freedom in terms of destination.
-
Can there be a kind of stand-off / Trench war on the same celestial body between two opponents? If I get it right, you need Ground supply to fight with some efficiency (only for attack but you always defend at full strength?).
So in theory, you can have 2 opponents on the same body for months? That would be neat!
And if yes, how the celestial body economy works in case of disputed territory? Are you hampered by enemy presence? Or until your last soldier dies, your industries work at full capacity?
-
Can there be a kind of stand-off / Trench war on the same celestial body between two opponents? If I get it right, you need Ground supply to fight with some efficiency (only for attack but you always defend at full strength?).
So in theory, you can have 2 opponents on the same body for months? That would be neat!
And if yes, how the celestial body economy works in case of disputed territory? Are you hampered by enemy presence? Or until your last soldier dies, your industries work at full capacity?
Yes, it could last for months. Once supplies run out, the rate of combat is reduced. On a world with good defensive terrain, it could be a war of attrition.
At the moment, you hold on to everything except for collateral damage. I might change that once I have more experience with the combat system.
-
The way the ground mechanics look to be programmed now, on terrain that favours vehicles (desert, barren, ocean, basically anything largely flat and featureless) combat is likely to be short and favour the attacker because orbital fire support is just that much easier and the defense can't stack its defensive bonuses so well. On terrain that favours infantry (mountainous, forests, jungles, or worse, mountainous forests and jungles) the combat greatly favours the defender because orbital fire support is nearly useless while defensive bonuses can be stacked to ungodly heights. It also allows the defender to build up massive supply stockpiles, far greater than the attacker can bring in unless they've effectively won already, and possibly allow for a reversal of the space war that allows the defenders to receive reinforcements.
This doesn't mean that the defender will lose in terrains that favour the attacker or the attacker will lose in terrains that favour the defender. It just means you need to keep in mind what sort of units and how many units you deploy in a given circumstance. It's entirely possible for example for an attacker to not actually enter an aggressive posture on a jungle world and just stack their own fortifications as high as possible just as the defender is doing and slowly grind away at the defender as a result. I'd strongly advise this unless you have a definite tech advantage, or you can bring in large numbers of ground forces and keep them in supply.
-
About that, can both side benefit from fortifications and bunkers, or any defensive work? That would be an important part of the game I think.
-
About that, can both side benefit from fortifications and bunkers, or any defensive work? That would be an important part of the game I think.
Yes, both sides can be fortified. Units choose between front-line attack and front-line defence.
-
About that, can both side benefit from fortifications and bunkers, or any defensive work? That would be an important part of the game I think.
Yes, both sides can be fortified. Units choose between front-line attack and front-line defence.
Well that's going to be interesting. So if both sides are defending, do they still take damage ? (Small engagements, ect, essentially attrition warfare) Also, is it possible to have a special attack where your units "siege down" an enemy position, by using only artillery to attack ? Kind of like the massive artillery duels of the Great War.
-
Yes, your units can bombard the enemy even though they are on the defensive. Steve explained the mechanics in the ground combat updates here:http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786)
most notably this paragraph:
Supporting medium artillery will choose between hostile forces in Front-Line or Support field positions (and will ignore any elements in Rear Echelon field position for purposes of relative size), while heavy artillery can select targets in any field position.
So your medium and heavy artillery, plus your long-range artillery (which was added after Steve made that post, hence why it's not included in the text), will bombard enemy units even if your own front-line units are not attacking. In addition, you can have ground-support fighters, space fighters, and space ships bombarding the enemy ground units, either via supporting your own units or as separate bombardment attacks.
-
Well that's going to be interesting. So if both sides are defending, do they still take damage ? (Small engagements, ect, essentially attrition warfare) Also, is it possible to have a special attack where your units "siege down" an enemy position, by using only artillery to attack ? Kind of like the massive artillery duels of the Great War.
Units on the front line are always engaging. The difference between Front Line-Defense and Front Line-Offense is that the Defense allows them to fortify and benefit from fortification bonuses, while Offense gets a Breakthrough rating bonus, which potentially allows an extra attack at the rear areas of the enemy forces.
Combat between heavily fortified parties would definitely feel like the sort of static warfare you see during the First World War.
Yes, your units can bombard the enemy even though they are on the defensive. Steve explained the mechanics in the ground combat updates here:http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786)
most notably this paragraph:
Supporting medium artillery will choose between hostile forces in Front-Line or Support field positions (and will ignore any elements in Rear Echelon field position for purposes of relative size), while heavy artillery can select targets in any field position.
So your medium and heavy artillery, plus your long-range artillery (which was added after Steve made that post, hence why it's not included in the text), will bombard enemy units even if your own front-line units are not attacking. In addition, you can have ground-support fighters, space fighters, and space ships bombarding the enemy ground units, either via supporting your own units or as separate bombardment attacks.
Note that in general you definitely want to use orbital bombardment as support through a forward observer. Collateral damage gets nasty, and quite quickly so on habitable planets. Really, the more I think about it the more I am forced to conclude that the world's to hit modifier at minimum needs to apply to collateral damage as well, because otherwise highly defensible worlds are useless to the attacker anyway, so you might as well unload thousands of warhead strength and let it lapse into a Barren world because the collateral damage mechanics would result in losing out on whatever is on planet anyway, and such heavy general bombardment lowers the defensive bonuses so you save a fair bit of ground forces.
-
Note that in general you definitely want to use orbital bombardment as support through a forward observer. Collateral damage gets nasty, and quite quickly so on habitable planets. Really, the more I think about it the more I am forced to conclude that the world's to hit modifier at minimum needs to apply to collateral damage as well, because otherwise highly defensible worlds are useless to the attacker anyway, so you might as well unload thousands of warhead strength and let it lapse into a Barren world because the collateral damage mechanics would result in losing out on whatever is on planet anyway, and such heavy general bombardment lowers the defensive bonuses so you save a fair bit of ground forces.
The planet will break before the guard does.
I don't really see a problem with this. It should probably be fairly difficult to fortify a planet to that degree against a persistant attacker, a lot of resources and monetary upkeep, but if you fortify a world that hard maybe there shouldn't be much left to claim in the aftermath. Of course what IS left to claim is a habitable planet. If you turn the thing into a glowing ball you lose that.
-
Hoping to see some boarding combat? Maybe from the Shogunate :) Keep up the good work
-
Looks like Mars is taking the lead here in establishing colonies. And wow, Sirius II is going to be one hell of a Duranium source with that load.
-
Looks like Mars is taking the lead here in establishing colonies. And wow, Sirius II is going to be one hell of a Duranium source with that load.
Yep. Even though the other minerals are terrible, a (near)habitable planet with 60 million accessibility 1 duranium is quite a prize.
It's also interesting how the ground forces change makes sniping colonies much harder. Normally this sort of scenario would have the various nations each trying to claim their own jump point for defensibility purposes, but here Mars is grabbing colonies in two Sol adjacent systems. Pretty greedy, but maybe not overly so if they can use ground forces to reinforce their claims. At the very least they can make sure the colonies aren't helpless without splitting the Martian fleet up for guard duty.
-
The ELInt module usage is very interesting to me. My only gripe is that I wonder how useful it would actually be in a single race game.
I mean, hostile AIs will likely just blast your ships to pieces anyway. So it seems something mostly useful for the rare situation where you have a friendly NPR. There is cloaking of course, but if the AI guards the jump points...
In a multi race start it seems very interesting though. Also, maybe the new diplomacy will actually change all this, so, fingers crossed :)
-
The ELInt module usage is very interesting to me. My only gripe is that I wonder how useful it would actually be in a single race game.
I mean, hostile AIs will likely just blast your ships to pieces anyway. So it seems something mostly useful for the rare situation where you have a friendly NPR. There is cloaking of course, but if the AI guards the jump points...
In a multi race start it seems very interesting though. Also, maybe the new diplomacy will actually change all this, so, fingers crossed :)
The ELINT ships are being detected on passive thermal only by Mars and Earth using tracking stations. If Mars / Terra had less than six tracking stations, they wouldn't detect them. Also, if the Jovians had the first two levels of thermal reduction tech (4500 RP total), the ELINT ships would remain undetected (Mars has 9 tracking stations at 300 strength and Terra has 8 at 250). Finally, the ELINT modules stack, so you could try a larger ship with greater detection range. There is definitely scope for some sneaking around :)
BTW the ELINT ships are adding espionage points but the Jovians missed their first roll.
-
I'm not seeing the Survey report for Sirius II, but the Luyten 726-8-B I colony isn't useless either. Several million tons of Duranium, Vendarite and Sorium at .90 availability, and a couple of million tons of Mercassium at .50? That's useful, if you can keep it.
I think that the Sirius colony in particular is going to need a Custodes unit stationed there though, and soon. It's such an obvious target for a Duranium strapped polity to try and take, or another nation to try and deny to the Martians. It's a Jungle Rifts Valley planet though, so... rather hard to assault.
-
Or. . . just land and start mining it themselves? There are a lot of shared CMC sites in Sol system; if a non-hostile power started their own colony in Sirius would it be worth a war to not share the planet? Mars would still get a million tons of Duranium without fighting.
-
Or. . . just land and start mining it themselves? There are a lot of shared CMC sites in Sol system; if a non-hostile power started their own colony in Sirius would it be worth a war to not share the planet? Mars would still get a million tons of Duranium without fighting.
Mars would have to allow them to land, though (at least if they were willing to risk a war over it). And if their requirement for allowing a colony were something like "no ground forces allowed" (to prevent someone else from using it as an excuse to land their own ground forces), then anyone colonizing it would know they were basically just giving colonists and infrastructure to Mars in the case of war.
I think that the Sirius colony in particular is going to need a Custodes unit stationed there though, and soon. It's such an obvious target for a Duranium strapped polity to try and take, or another nation to try and deny to the Martians. It's a Jungle Rifts Valley planet though, so... rather hard to assault.
This got me thinking, how would a Custodes unit compare to the more common warship units available.
First, some assumptions; a Custodes is described as having 6 particle beams and 6 twin gauss turrets. We don't get the actual stats, but I assume they're comparable to matching weapons on Martian warships, so we get:
6 STO Particle Cannons:
Tiberius Weapon Systems TW6-240 Particle Beam Range 240,000km TS: 5,335 km/s Power 15-4 ROF 20
Titus-Felix TF-256 Beam Fire Control Max Range: 256,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s
HP: 30? (Ceramic Composite armor tech)
Armor: 10-30? (ditto, and I'm guessing 30)
6 Twin Gauss Turrets:
Twin R3 Gauss Cannon Turret (1x6) Range 30,000km TS: 20000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5
Titus-Felix TF-20 Point Defence Fire Control (1) Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 20,000 km/s
HP: 30?
Armor: 10-30?
Assuming 30 armor, a 9 damage hit is necessary to ensure a kill (ouch), 4 damage would have a 44% chance of a kill, and 1 damage would have a ~5% chance of a kill. The terrain gives a fortification/accuracy multiplier of 12 (ie 1 in 12 attacks will miss) and the STO weapons will likely have a fortification of either 3 (self fortified) or 6 (with engineers/construction factory assistance). Assuming full fortification (worst case scenario) that gives the following hits per kill (on average):
9+ damage: 72 hits
4 damage: 162 hits
2 damage: 365 hits
1 damage: 1,440 hits
Just making a Fermi estimate, I'd say that puts each individual gun as roughly two thirds tougher than a Martian Battlecruiser, if not higher (and proportionately better against smaller and very large hits). The firepower is a lot lower, of course (or at least it would be if the Martian battlecruisers had particle beams), but still, it shows how tough STO can be on a high fortification multiplier planet.
IIRC, the rules for firing on revealed STO units are considerably different from a general bombardment of ground forces, so it at least avoids the need for FFD to make a proper effort.
Scenario 1: Saturation missile bombardment
The Jovian federation uses WH 9 missiles. With a sufficient force of battlecruisers and patrol craft, they could overwhelm the point defense and land unanswered hits. They'd still need an average of 432 missile hits to destroy the 12 guns of a Custodes unit, which would make a mess of the planet, and the point defenses would be shooting down an average of nearly 34 missiles per salvo. Not completely impossible, but extremely expensive and likely to end up basically reducing the planet to a radioactive wasteland. Also, they'd need to provoke the STO weapons into revealing themselves first.
Scenario 2: Long Range Beam engagement
At current tech, none of the other nations appear to have weapons that can outrange the particle cannons, making bombarding them from out of range impossible.
However, if one nation did develop the tech, likely a large high powered laser, then it would come down to weapons failure and MSP costs. A theoretical next gen bombardment weapon might look like this:
20cm Far Ultraviolet Laser: Damage 10 (2 at 241,000) Max range 500,000 km
Max fire control range: 320,000 km
Bombarding from 241,000 km, they'd need approximately 365 hits per gun, and have an accuracy of ~33%. This means 1,104 shots per gun, or roughly 22 failures, each costing 158 MSQ, or 3,475 MSP per gun (once the particle beams were down the fleet could move closer). This would create a lot of dust but not radiation, and would still require the attackers to provoke the STO weapons into firing first. By far the most practical solution, but it requires a tech advantage.
Scenario 3: Short range bombardment (gun duel)
The 6 particle cannons put out 36 damage every 20 seconds. Range doesn't matter, so it would make the most sense to engage them relatively close, either point blank or just outside the gauss range of 30,000 km.
The most suited to this sort of short range bombardment would be the Shogunate, with their mass driver heavy ships. Their shields also mean they could minimize incoming damage by moving ships in and out of range. Each strike cruiser is capable of 32 shots of 1-4 damage depending on range every 15 seconds.
In theory a single strike cruiser could take out all the guns without damage by dancing in and out of range as its shields recharged, but this would take forever and be a micromanagement nightmare. In practical terms, the 8 strike cruisers of the Shogunate navy, or even perhaps half of them, could probably handle the defenses reasonably well with a similar technique. It would still create levels of dust similar to the long range laser bombardment, and require a lot of micromanagement as well as probably resulting in some armor damage to the strike cruisers, but it would work.
-
With those stats, armoured drop-ships to land troops under fire are seeming a lot more enticing.
-
With those stats, armoured drop-ships to land troops under fire are seeming a lot more enticing.
I dunno, I was actually kind of disappointed when I realized just how easily shielded warships or ones with a small range advantage could bombard down defenses (MSP are cheap). Though it would admittedly still cause lots of dust and collateral damage, it made it pretty clear to me that ground troops alone will barely slow down an enemy that doesn't care about glassing the planet.
-
...I realized just how easily shielded warships or ones with a small range advantage could bombard down defenses (MSP are cheap).
I wonder if there is any reason shields wouldn't work as a ground defense mechanic? Sort of like Star Wars, where shields make planetary bombardments more difficult and thus force ground engagements aka Hoth. Only on a unit level, rather than something that covers an entire planet, and of sufficient cost/tech level so as not to make it a cheap defense. I imagine a large, expensive 'module' that you could give certain units, but at the cost that its bulk makes them less maneuverable or something...
-
With those stats, armoured drop-ships to land troops under fire are seeming a lot more enticing.
I dunno, I was actually kind of disappointed when I realized just how easily shielded warships or ones with a small range advantage could bombard down defenses (MSP are cheap). Though it would admittedly still cause lots of dust and collateral damage, it made it pretty clear to me that ground troops alone will barely slow down an enemy that doesn't care about glassing the planet.
One thing to bear in mind is that ground-based fire controls have a 25% range advantage, so you need have a decent tech advantage. By the time the attacker has 20cm far ultraviolet lasers, the defenders will have much better weapons than the current particle beams.
-
With those stats, armoured drop-ships to land troops under fire are seeming a lot more enticing.
I dunno, I was actually kind of disappointed when I realized just how easily shielded warships or ones with a small range advantage could bombard down defenses (MSP are cheap). Though it would admittedly still cause lots of dust and collateral damage, it made it pretty clear to me that ground troops alone will barely slow down an enemy that doesn't care about glassing the planet.
One thing to bear in mind is that ground-based fire controls have a 25% range advantage, so you need have a decent tech advantage. By the time the attacker has 20cm far ultraviolet lasers, the defenders will have much better weapons than the current particle beams.
I had forgotten about that. It makes a bigger difference with lasers (particle beams will be more accurate but still vulnerable to being outranged) and makes it very unlikely to outrange them without a massive tech advantage.
-
I wonder if there is any reason shields wouldn't work as a ground defense mechanic? Sort of like Star Wars, where shields make planetary bombardments more difficult and thus force ground engagements aka Hoth. Only on a unit level, rather than something that covers an entire planet, and of sufficient cost/tech level so as not to make it a cheap defense. I imagine a large, expensive 'module' that you could give certain units, but at the cost that its bulk makes them less maneuverable or something...
Just make it an STO type weapon, so it can only be stuck on a Static unit, and is as large a component as it is on a ship.
-
I mean, hostile AIs will likely just blast your ships to pieces anyway.
I very much hope that isn't a given. The racial strategy AI (or whatever it's called) should think hard about whether it's worth causing a further diplomatic incident by killing small, apparently unarmed ships.
On the other hand, if they find such a thing it should itself count as a diplomatic incident. But if they judge you as being a powerful enough empire it's not worth risking a war...
I hope the diplomacy system involves the ability to do things like register diplomatic protests, possibly even trade sanctions, etc. different ways to diplomatically handle and register conflict without resorting immediately to shooting.
-
I mean, hostile AIs will likely just blast your ships to pieces anyway.
I very much hope that isn't a given. The racial strategy AI (or whatever it's called) should think hard about whether it's worth causing a further diplomatic incident by killing small, apparently unarmed ships.
On the other hand, if they find such a thing it should itself count as a diplomatic incident. But if they judge you as being a powerful enough empire it's not worth risking a war...
I hope the diplomacy system involves the ability to do things like register diplomatic protests, possibly even trade sanctions, etc. different ways to diplomatically handle and register conflict without resorting immediately to shooting.
I haven't coded it yet, but I intend to allow races to send each other preset messages such as "This system is ours. Leave immediately". There will be some variants on that general theme once I get into coding.
-
I'm imagining an accumulator variable that helps dictate AI diplomatic behaviour for purposes of this post, but I understand that's nothing but an analogy.
It would be very, very cool if messages themselves had diplomatic consequences, both direct and indirectly related. In our current example, let's say you send the AI a message to vacate the premises with his spy ship immediately. This involves a small relationship hit. The AI decides to linger for whatever reason instead of leaving post-haste. You destroy his spy. This is another relationship hit, but the two hits together are not as extreme as if you had fired immediately without diplomatic communication.
-
It should also create another counter, roughly how much 'teeth' a given empire's diplomacy has. An empire that demands the removal of a ship but does not act for months is less likely to have its demands immediately heeded compared to an empire that tells a spy ship to get lost or else and then does the 'or else' within a week if not heeded.
Acting consistently should lower diplomatic penalties but improve diplomatic bonuses. People like diplomatic partners who are consistent and can be relied upon to act in a certain way. It'd be more programming however.
-
Another C# test campaign comes to an end :)
Due to the recent updates to C# Aurora, I've decided to start a new campaign. Aftermath was very useful in finding a number of key bugs and identifying areas of improvement but I would like to see the automated medals, etc. functioning from the start.
Also, I need a campaign where I can get into some fights relatively quickly (like The Suns Never Set), especially for ground combat, so I have created a new campaign that should make that much more likely.
-
Another C# test campaign comes to an end :)
Due to the recent updates to C# Aurora, I've decided to start a new campaign. Aftermath was very useful in finding a number of key bugs and identifying areas of improvement but I would like to see the automated medals, etc. functioning from the start.
Also, I need a campaign where I can get into some fights relatively quickly (like The Suns Never Set), especially for ground combat, so I have created a new campaign that should make that much more likely.
Doh. On the one hand, I'm sad about this.
On the other hand, it's indicative of progress. Sooooooo..... ;D
-
So much time spent writing all the backgrounds and stuff, but maybe the setup can be reused again at some other point. Regardless your AAR:s are always good reads so not wasted effort by any means.. just wish they went on longer.
-
So much time spent writing all the backgrounds and stuff, but maybe the setup can be reused again at some other point. Regardless your AAR:s are always good reads so not wasted effort by any means.. just wish they went on longer.
Yes, the background took a while :)
I enjoy it though as I usually learn a lot when researching the backgrounds. I am sure will be able to reuse some of it in the future. At the moment though I need to keep trying different things as it is the best way to stress-test the new code.
-
Just saying, if all you need is combat data you can do some SM shenanigans to spawn them in.