Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Questions  (Read 201695 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 261
  • Thanked: 136 times
  • 2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Supporter of the forum for 2024
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #600 on: February 26, 2020, 03:17:16 PM »
Question:  If you have a large Battalion size ground formation with many disparate elements and you research out some new technology, or think of a new variation of organization scheme, can you modify an already existing formation?  Like lets say I want replace all the MG sections because I can produce a new version or I decided that I want to add a half dozen AA tanks to each Armor Battalion, can I do that  or am I limited to the template for the organization?
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #601 on: February 26, 2020, 03:58:40 PM »
You can change the template and all new builds will follow it, but based on what Steve was saying about replacements and after-combat damage, it doesn't sound like there's nay sort of 'Rebuild to Template' functionality yet.

So you can add six more MG teams to each existing battalion by hand, but not automatically.

- - - - -

(Once a ground unit exists, you can add anything you like to it within HQ limits.)
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 644
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #602 on: February 26, 2020, 05:14:23 PM »
Or, IIRC, outside HQ limits.

It just results in the various bonuses you get from commanding officers getting penalized.
 

Offline amram

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • a
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #603 on: February 26, 2020, 05:54:56 PM »
Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885

Will that follow the same increments as sensor HS currently does in 7.1?  0.1 from 0.1 to 1, 0.2 from 1 to 2, 0.25 from 2 to 5, and 1hs from there to maximum?  Went looking, didn't find that detail anywhere.

Busily converting my excel workbook in prep for c#, already have it running c# numbers for sensors, missiles, and engine/fuel prescriptions, except for matching granularity in engine size options, its still integer HS engines only.  Going to build in the sensor pattern until I know different, relatively easily changed once known.

Not important, but if you have a free moment?  Thanks.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11954
  • Thanked: 22170 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #604 on: February 27, 2020, 04:15:20 AM »
Not sure if I missed this information or if this has been considered but will there be a finer granulation of fighter engines now that the fuel economy are somewhat different from before. There will be a huge difference between a size 1 and size 2 engine now.

If it wouldn't be too much a trouble to make it like 1 and 0.1 increments to 2, 0.2 increments to 3 and 0.25 increments to 4 and 0.5 increments to 5 or some such.

Fighter engines start at 0.1 HS now.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109885#msg109885

Will that follow the same increments as sensor HS currently does in 7.1?  0.1 from 0.1 to 1, 0.2 from 1 to 2, 0.25 from 2 to 5, and 1hs from there to maximum?  Went looking, didn't find that detail anywhere.

Busily converting my excel workbook in prep for c#, already have it running c# numbers for sensors, missiles, and engine/fuel prescriptions, except for matching granularity in engine size options, its still integer HS engines only.  Going to build in the sensor pattern until I know different, relatively easily changed once known.

Not important, but if you have a free moment?  Thanks.

Engines are in 0.1 HS increments up to 10 HS, 0.25 HS increments to 20 HS and then 1 HS increments thereafter. A lot of components have more granular sizes in C#. Beam fire controls also have more steps for tracking speed multipliers

« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 04:17:56 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: amram, mtm84, DEEPenergy, Alsadius, BigBacon

Offline amram

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • a
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #605 on: February 27, 2020, 04:32:33 PM »
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks.
 

Offline WA Lancer

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • W
  • Posts: 4
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #606 on: February 27, 2020, 10:30:05 PM »
Will there be a fleet exercise or weapon testing option in this game so I can see the effectiveness of the weapon systems I design?

I'm sure this has been asked and answered somewhere but idk where to look and it appears that more searching may take hours, sorry.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2925
  • Thanked: 1181 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #607 on: February 28, 2020, 11:49:11 AM »
No.

You can do it via SM mode - you can use SM to conjure "target drones" out of thin air as part of a human-controlled "alien race" and then attack them with your own ships.

AFAIK, that's the only way to do testing in C# as well.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #608 on: March 03, 2020, 11:02:10 AM »
Hi, in my games I used mostly CIWS for PD due to the general chore of managing PD fire control systems etc.
With the update on how final defense works in C# will CIWS get some rework? They seem like redundant system now to me (only way to use now is to equip civ ships with it)
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2925
  • Thanked: 1181 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #609 on: March 03, 2020, 12:09:58 PM »
Since you can set PD and BFC automatically now and final fire will catch all missiles, there is no need to keep using CIWS.

It'll still protect you during jump shock and of course it's the only option for commercial ships. With the introduction of Structural Shell for space stations, and commercial hangars as well as magazines, I foresee CIWS remaining useful and necessary.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #610 on: March 03, 2020, 12:15:36 PM »
there is no need to keep using CIWS.


This is really a shame, I want to keep them for military ships too, I always RP them as powerful miniguns you see on nowdays naval ships, its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11954
  • Thanked: 22170 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #611 on: March 03, 2020, 01:00:29 PM »
there is no need to keep using CIWS.


This is really a shame, I want to keep them for military ships too, I always RP them as powerful miniguns you see on nowdays naval ships, its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.

CIWS is still useful for some situations, as it is more compact than having the weapon, reactor, fire control and ECCM as separate installations.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2925
  • Thanked: 1181 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #612 on: March 03, 2020, 02:33:26 PM »
its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.
I hear ye, but just name them something clever and that should fix it. I named my "Quad Gauss Turret" FlaK-Battery instead in one game and in another it was "Point Defence Turret" and you got used that term quickly which helps you imagine it the way you want it. You could name it Gatling Gun or Defensive Turret or anything that sparks your imagination.

And of course nothing stops you from using CIWS, I was just saying that organizing PD is now faster and easier than before so from convenience/micromanagement POV there is no use for CIWS.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11954
  • Thanked: 22170 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #613 on: March 03, 2020, 03:26:34 PM »
its a bit harder to imagine with regular gauss turret for me, as it seems more like a small-caliber naval cannon instead.
I hear ye, but just name them something clever and that should fix it. I named my "Quad Gauss Turret" FlaK-Battery instead in one game and in another it was "Point Defence Turret" and you got used that term quickly which helps you imagine it the way you want it. You could name it Gatling Gun or Defensive Turret or anything that sparks your imagination.

And of course nothing stops you from using CIWS, I was just saying that organizing PD is now faster and easier than before so from convenience/micromanagement POV there is no use for CIWS.

For my WH40k campaign, railguns were weapon batteries, gauss cannon were defence turrets, missiles were torpedoes and particle beams were lance batteries. You soon get used to it.
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #614 on: March 04, 2020, 02:14:06 AM »

For my WH40k campaign, railguns were weapon batteries, gauss cannon were defence turrets, missiles were torpedoes and particle beams were lance batteries. You soon get used to it.

Seems I can live with that, thanks.
Would still be cool to see some additional utility in CIWS in future though.