Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 631 632 [633] 634 635 ... 1347

Author Topic: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games  (Read 2843812 times)

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9480 on: January 06, 2012, 08:48:36 pm »

An additional reason for having only a few fuel tanks on a combat ship is that it gives less potential sources of secondary explosions.

Just like to point out that this is incorrect. The only potential sources of secondary explosions are power plants, engines, and magazines that fail to eject.


Oh hey, ship criticism, I love that!  RIP MY MAIN CRUISER APART

Quote
Churchill class Cruiser    10,000 tons     975 Crew     2130.8 BP      TCS 200  TH 210  EM 0
3000 km/s     Armour 9-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 22/22/0/0     Damage Control Rating 26     PPV 38
Maint Life 18.05 Years     MSP 3131    AFR 50%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 18    5YR 273    Max Repair 134 MSP
Magazine 312   

American Driveyards Ion Engine M6 (10)    Power 60    Fuel Use 60%    Signature 21    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres    Range 150.0 billion km   (578 days at full power)

Gauss Cannon R3-100 (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegis CIWS-160 (2x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Coilgun Fire Control S04 64-8000 H40 (1)    Max Range: 128,000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     92 84 77 69 61 53 45 37 30 22

Size 4 Cruiser Missile Launcher (EIGHT)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 30
Sidewinder Missile Fire Control FC70-R40 (2)     Range 70.1m km    Resolution 40
Size 4 Anti-ship Missile (78)  Speed: 15,000 km/s   End: 75m    Range: 67.5m km   WH: 9    Size: 4    TH: 75 / 45 / 22

Active Search Sensor MR20-R20 (1)     GPS 840     Range 20.7m km    Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH2-22 M (1)     Sensitivity 22     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-22 M (1)     Sensitivity 22     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22m km

Compact ECCM-1 (2)         ECM 10

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

For RP reasons, the ship has to have a gauss cannon and stay under 10,000 tons.  That is the best coilgun the UNE can field, sadly. :/

Normal speed for Ion tech, and with the fleet mix you mentioned, fairly effective for its role. As others have mentioned, you can afford to reduce the number of engineering spaces, increase magazine capacity, and drop a couple layers of armor. It isn't a primary target for enemies, and it doesn't have to close to beam range, so cutting out armor will allow you to increase the number of tubes you can mount. You could probably do better on the missile CTH, and I'd suggest adding some XO racks/Box launchers, perhaps 20 or 30, which will allow you to drop much heavier single salvos on hardened targets. If I were you, I'd make it a priority to improve Gauss tech and missile agility tech. That said, your EW FC is massively overbuilt; you don't need range multipliers for Gauss cannon, and if you're using spinal mounts, you don't need the tracking speed multipliers either.


Spoiler: rpish blathering (click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 09:57:34 pm by Flying Dice »
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9481 on: January 07, 2012, 12:28:52 am »

So I've finally hit a new tech milestone and am busy building a new generation of warships, and I happened across something absolutely beautiful: While excavating ruins, I had come across more than 200 "compressed fuel storage" ship components. I disassembled them on-site, until I eventually got the message about no new discoveries being made from doing so. When I started to design my first new ship, I noticed a new component- the Compressed Fuel Storage, which is only 50 tons but hold 75000 litres of fuel. In other words, it has 150% the capacity of normal Fuel Storage without a corresponding increase in tonnage.  :D
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Tarran

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kind of back, but for how long?!
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9482 on: January 07, 2012, 12:43:45 am »

Yeah, that is sweet tech. You can cut 1/3 of your fuel tanks out for just a little more cost in minerals IIRC.
Logged
Quote from: Phantom
Unknown to most but the insane and the mystics, Tarran is actually Earth itself, as Earth is sentient like that planet in Avatar. Originally Earth used names such as Terra on the internet, but to protect it's identity it changed letters, now becoming the Tarran you know today.
Quote from: Ze Spy
Tarran has the "Tarran Bug", a bug which causes the affected character to repeatedly hit teammates while dual-wielding instead of whatever the hell he is shooting at.

Canalan

  • Bay Watcher
  • A Chainsaw! Find some meat!
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9483 on: January 07, 2012, 12:44:40 am »

You lucky SOB.  I never seem to get ruins, only angry missile Precursors.
I'm currently drowning in a sea of new Rickert Container Company freighters.  Apparently, the ten they already possessed were not enough for Operation: Move all the Infrastructure off Mars Since the Terraforming is Finished.  They built five Atlas class freighters in the space of a year, with one or two Outreach class high-capacity colony ships added in for good measure.  This marks a major milestone for RCC, as the new ships push it past the twenty ship mark.  Share prices are at an all time high.  The new company, Fuller Carrier Line, has yet to launch a single ship in spite of a massive UNE grant and over three years of time. 

EDIT: BREAKING NEWS - Fuller Carrier Line has FINALLY launched their first Atlas.  And here I was thinking that they used the grant money for drugs and hookers.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 01:49:03 am by Canalan »
Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9484 on: January 07, 2012, 02:01:03 am »

I've finally finished my eye-blistering round of ship designing. Criticism gogogo.  :P

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Obviously, most of these are going to spend the vast majority of the time sitting in nice, cozy MFs. I need to get around to designing some long term deployment pickets that still retain usefulness in combat...
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9485 on: January 07, 2012, 05:27:50 am »

Your plan of using carronades for stealth ships won't work. You cannot sneak that close.

Better ideas:-Sneak Carrier with FACs using carronades: No need to go Stealthy when you can come in and be out before they have the time to react.
                   -Long Range, sniping ship with sensor-equipped missiles
                   -Sneak Carrier using droppod. Watch the fun as 90% of your marines dies before taking over the ennemy ship.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9486 on: January 07, 2012, 06:34:12 am »

Holy crap installing this game is painful... Now what the hell am I looking at :P
*Edit, have no idea what I'm doing. Any help?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 06:38:34 am by Loud Whispers »
Logged

Tarran

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kind of back, but for how long?!
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9487 on: January 07, 2012, 06:58:36 am »

Ask us questions one at a time. Start at the System Map (Hotkey is F3 I believe).
Logged
Quote from: Phantom
Unknown to most but the insane and the mystics, Tarran is actually Earth itself, as Earth is sentient like that planet in Avatar. Originally Earth used names such as Terra on the internet, but to protect it's identity it changed letters, now becoming the Tarran you know today.
Quote from: Ze Spy
Tarran has the "Tarran Bug", a bug which causes the affected character to repeatedly hit teammates while dual-wielding instead of whatever the hell he is shooting at.

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9488 on: January 07, 2012, 11:04:10 am »

Your plan of using carronades for stealth ships won't work. You cannot sneak that close.

This is actually what I'm curious about. I'm going to be burning up through the thermal reduction and cloaking tech to see how close I can get before being detected, which will let me determine what I want to use.


I don't think that FACs are going to be able to carry a Carronade without going over the 1k ton mass limit, otherwise I would have considered that.

What I did do, however, was design a 3600ton frigate with a pair of 40cm carronades that can reach 10,000+ km/s.

Unrelated bit of science: It is actually physically impossible to break the light barrier now, as adding additional fighter engines to a design will slow it down. A ship with nothing but a FTR Photonic Drive E200 (the maximum possible power output of any drive in the game) will have a maximum speed of 270,000 km/s, or about 0.9c. A complete design (one which generates no error messages and could be built) doesn't add enough mass to change that figure. A 'useful' design which I would consider building is going to drop to about 65,000-100,000 km/s.


I'm mildly irked to be reminded that the maximum beam FC range is still far beneath the maximum range of pretty much all of the best energy weapons.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 02:55:24 pm by Flying Dice »
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

BishopX

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9489 on: January 07, 2012, 03:03:46 pm »

Flying Dice, would you mind giving me some pointers on the best to to design guass PD turrets? I don't think I've quite grokked all the implications of the size vs. accuracy tradeoff for gauss weaponry, or why you are using relativly low tracking speeds for your turrets.
Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9490 on: January 07, 2012, 04:04:23 pm »

Flying Dice, would you mind giving me some pointers on the best to to design guass PD turrets? I don't think I've quite grokked all the implications of the size vs. accuracy tradeoff for gauss weaponry, or why you are using relativly low tracking speeds for your turrets.

The size v accuracy thing is fairly simple. Assume you (like me, at the moment) have Velocity and Rate of Fire 4 techs. This means that a standard 6HS 100% size gauss cannon with a range of 40,000 km would fire 4 shots every five seconds. This weapon would take up 300 tons of space on a ship. If you designed a 3HS 50% cannon, it would have the same range and rate of fire, but the accuracy modifier would be 0.5, rather than 1, but it would also take up only 150 tons of space. Essentially, the tradeoff is for making weapons that, though less effective, are able to fit in smaller craft. If you put 4 3HS 50% gauss cannons on a ship, they would have the same overall CTH as 2 6HS 100% gauss cannon. However, given the relatively small size of standard 6HS 100% cannons, and the fact that their primary use is for PD, there really isn't much reason to use reduced size GC.

The turn speed is tied to spacesaving; a FC designed to track at 25,000 km/s is going to be twice as large as one designed to track at 12,500 km/s, and a single gauss turret designed to track at 25,000 km/s will be 430 tons, as opposed to 362.5 tons for a 12,000 km/s turret. Taking my Goliath II class PD cruiser as an example, I have 9100 tons worth of gauss turrets and FCs using 12,000 km/s tracking speed. If I increased the tracking speed on that to 25,000 km/s, I woudl end up with 11920 tons of gauss turrets and FCs, which would force me to pack on additional engines, crew compartments, engineering spaces, and fuel storage, to keep up with fleet standards, which would in turn increase the cost and time investment required to build each one. As it stands, the mix of two PD cruisers and one Heavy Cruiser have 63 single gauss turrets and 11 PD FCs between them, and each ship has multiple CIWS as well, which is more than sufficient to completely eliminate most, if not all, missile attacks. So essentially it is a matter of cost, especially as I've already proven that they can handle large volumes of missiles, even with a relatively low CTH.

As for the merits of single turrets vs multiturrets vs spinal mounts:

Spinal mounts are obviously not appropriate for PD work on larger ships, which forces us to use turrets. The difference between single turrets and multiturrets is between number of targets which can be engaged simultaneously with the same ratio of FC to turrets.

A single gauss turret with my current technology masses 362.5 tons, with no turret armor and 12,000 km/s tracking speed. A twin turret, with the exact same tech, armor, and TS masses 729.5 tons, while a triple turret is 1085 tons, and a quad turret is 1442.5 tons. In other words, a single gauss turret with my current tech and those requirements is 0.49 times the size of a twin turret, 0.33 times the size of a triple turret, and 0.25 times the size of a quad turret. In other words, the ratio of # of cannon : tonnage are for our intents and purposes equal, making the only effective difference the one I already mentioned. You can mount larger numbers of single turrets on a given size ship than multiturrets, which (assuming a constant ratio of x number of FCs per y number of turrets) allows you to target larger numbers of enemy contacts. You can still bring the same weight of fire to bear on any one given salvo (the typical engagement will involve targetting single enemy salvos at 5s or greater intervals, which all gauss weapons are ideal for), yet will also allow you to target a larger number of different contacts. So if you have to deal with three different sets of salvos from 3 different enemy ships, or against enemy fighters (not a real possibility) or FACs, you'll be more flexible.

Assume a squadron of 3 PD ships with 8 quad gauss turrets and 2 PD FCs each, defending against 4 sets of salvos from 4 ASM ships. The maximum possible coverage they can achieve is 2 FCs targetting two of the salvos, and 1 FC targetting each of the remaining salvos. Assuming an assignment ratio of 4 turrets to each FC, this would mean 2 salvo lines would be targetted by 8 turrets (or 32 gauss cannon) each, and 2 would be targetted by 4 turrets (or 16 gauss cannon) each. Even without battle damage, this is not an ideal spread of fire.

Now assume a squadron of 3 PD ships with 32 single gauss turrets and 8 PD FCs each, defending against the same sets of salvos. The maximum coverage for these ships is 6 FCs for each salvo line, with means that each salvo line would be targetted by 24 single turrets (or 24 gauss cannon), an equal spread.

An additional reason to use single turrets and larger numbers of FC is that it minimizes the loss of effectiveness caused by battle damage. In the first ship, with 2 FC and 8 quad turrets, losing even a single FC would halve its effectiveness, and a single turret lost would reduce its PD fire by 12.5%, whereas losing a FC would only reduce the effectiveness of one of the latter ships by 12.5%, and losing a single turret would reduce its outgoing fire by a mere 3.125%.


Also, those intact cities ruins? They've gotten me all the way up to Mining Production 70 ton, the last mining rate tech.  :o

For those who are curious, my current annual output for Acc. 1 minerals on Earth is 144,540 tons/year.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 04:09:58 pm by Flying Dice »
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

BishopX

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9491 on: January 07, 2012, 04:28:45 pm »

I guess the thing I'm not understanding is why you're using such low tracking speeds for your PD. I've never encoutered a missle doing less than 20,000 km/s, so while keeping your tracking speed at 12,000km/s may save you space, but it will also cost you accuracy. Since chance to hit about your tracking speed is modified by max tracking speed/Target speed, the relationship between speed and chance to hit is linear.

Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9492 on: January 07, 2012, 05:08:12 pm »

Again, because I can barely afford to build, crew, and supply these ships as it is. With the current load, I'm still getting between 30% and 35% CTH for my PD against missiles moving at 30,000 km/s, which for my purposes is more than enough for anything I'm likely to face, given the total weight of PD fire one of my TGs can field. It isn't a matter of low tracking speed being "better", it is a matter of it being practical for my current macro situation. I could use fewer turrets with a higher tracking speed, but that would decrease redundancy without an appreciable increase in capability, so that if I ever ran into something that could break through my PD, every hit I took that damaged my PD systems would reduce their effectiveness by a greater percent.

To put it simply, I had to pick one component of my design to skimp on, in order to maintain everything else at an acceptable standard, and PD tracking speed is the one that was least likely to have serious consequences, especially given what I've already encountered. My Precursors were the ones with the 30,000 km/s missiles, and I've already matched their engine tech, so it is extremely unlikely that I'll run into anyone with missiles faster than that (except the Invaders, but that is a whole 'nother can of worms), meaning that, as my current systems have already been combat-tested against the Precursors, it follows that they should be effective against pretty much everything else for as long as it takes to get my tech to the point where I can increase it.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Scout1

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9493 on: January 08, 2012, 01:25:59 pm »

So my timeskips are really fucked up for like 5 ingame years now. Trying to go ahead 30 days usually gets me anywhere from 18 hours to 3 days, sometimes as low as 6 hours, or sometimes as high and odd as 22 day increments. It's a 15 system game and I can see about 1/3 of them, so I doubt it's half a dozen raging NPRs somewhere I can't see. What could account for that time and persistence, and any fixes?
Logged

majikero

  • Bay Watcher
  • Poi~
    • View Profile
Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« Reply #9494 on: January 08, 2012, 02:58:45 pm »

Did you check what events are stopping it? Lots of things stop the timeskip.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 631 632 [633] 634 635 ... 1347