v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Bremen]

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.

[kyonkundenwa]

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.

[nuclearslurpee]

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" 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.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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" 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.

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

[Hazard]

Do designated targets actually take damage, or is it simulated?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[Kaiser]

I totally love the designated target thing, finally I can try weapons before starting mass production. 

[nuclearslurpee]

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? 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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? 

Yes, quite a few of the tech lines lack the higher level techs. I'll add them over time.

[Warer]

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

[StarshipCactus]

Yay! New version 

[GregoryT]

Thank you for the early Christmas present!

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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

[Cristo]

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!