v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[nuclearslurpee]

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! 

[Droll]

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.

[Cones2002]

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 :)

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[SpaceMarine]

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.

[Pedroig]

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.

[Destragon]

"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?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

"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.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[Destragon]

"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?

[Destragon]

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?

[Garfunkel]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

"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.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[Destragon]

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.