|
mmm11105 posted:Anyone have a link to that old LP for those of us with Archives? I don't have search. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3389215 I also did an LP on the Bay12 forums (unsurprisingly, this game is quite popular with DF players); I didn't put nearly as much effort into it as bgreman is into this one but if you want to look at other LPs you can check it out here. Ceebees posted:This line of interdepartmental email simulation has me curious. In Aurora, fighters are more or less just normal ships with special engines and boosted fire controls. They use the same weapons, sensors, fuel, ammo, etc as other ships, so the only advantage to a carrier with 24 meson fighters over a battleship with 24 meson cannons is mobility and the fact that the carrier can stay far away from the action. The battleship would even be smaller, since it wont need the redundancy of 24 of each component. On the other hand, missile armed fighters have one interesting tactic open to them, but that has to do with how sensors and targeting works in this game. So it might be best to wait till those aspects get covered. The short of it is that it's possible to use squadrons of fighters launching missiles from beyond the range that any conceivable enemy missile could lock onto such a small target, then flying back to its carrier for reloads. However, this will consume large amounts of (expensive long range) missiles and fuel, so it's not as broken a tactic as it might sound Bremen fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Apr 1, 2012 |
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 22:55
|
|
Federation starts building things more interesting that concrete-lined holes in the ground?
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
PokeWarVeteran posted:So wait... can you slap whatever you want to together and hope it works, no matter how useless it may be? Missiles aren't designed the same way as ships, and you can't put crew quarters on them, but other than that you can do pretty much anything you want with the designer. One of the wackier missile examples I've seen was a 750 ton, 5 stage missile that had a 5 ton last stage; it was capable of hitting Pluto from Earth. Offensive terraforming is a real tactic in this game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
PokeWarVeteran posted:... In a meta sense, that mad logic actually works out. You can target civilian populations. Of course, nukes do collateral damage to civilian populations regardless of target, and increase the radiation level/lower the temperature on a planet. One of the official AARs actually has a desperate evacuation of Earth after a war between, IIRC, China and India renders the entire planet uninhabitable. So a MAD defense is possible. Not sure if I should say anything or let the thread continue to come up with its own hilarious plans, but Meson cannons not only penetrate armor and shields but also atmospheres; they make for awesome SDI bases to shoot down incoming missiles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Theoretically, if you stripped off enough of the Earth's atmosphere with terraformers you could use lasers against ground targets. Most of it is useless nitrogen anyways!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:FROM: The Hospital Bed of SPERMCUBE.ORG Perhaps they intend to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and try to claim the moon?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Just as a warning to those potential freighter designs, you might want to consider that the Earth itself is moving at 30 km/s. That design would be essentially worthless for reaching anything other than the moon.berryjon posted:What are the odds that the Federation spacecraft won't make it back to base due to mishap, or should I say "Mishap"? If they really don't have any engineering spaces, I'd actually say the odds of one blowing up due to maintenance failure is fairly high.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
PokeWarVeteran posted:Wait, these ships can't triangulate their destinations? Unfortunately, no; ships in the current version of Aurora will simply fly straight at their target and recalculate their trajectory every interval. This usually isn't a big issue since the ships use non-newtonian motion and are normally much faster than planets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
berryjon posted:Is it optimal to construct more Labs for faster research? Eventually, yes, though they're very expensive (2400 BP each, IIRC). Probably best to wait for the construction factories to be converted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Ynkling posted:I've got several freighters and colony ships running and making Mars and Venus runs, but now I have an even bigger problem. To set up these runs I've needed to make upwards of ten different task groups (most doing the same thing) simply because none of them feel like accepting new ships from my TG Shipyard. They furthermore refuse to be reassigned to any other TG for some reason. Huh? I've never had any trouble adding new ships to a task group. The easiest way to do it is wait for the task group to arrive at earth and then use the special orders/organization tab, select the shipyard group, and move the ships back and forth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:FROM: The Tank of SPERMCUBE.ORG Actually, I suspect one side or the other would eventually pull ahead, at which point the losing side would launch their ICBMs and render the Earth a radioactive wasteland for both sides. So a full scale war is probably a bad idea. To successfully conquer the Earth, I think two things would be required: 1) A TNE missile defense system capable of shooting down the vast majority of enemy ICBMs 2) TNE ground forces in sufficient quantity to defeat the enemy troops. Unfortunately, developing both in parallel would be incredibly expensive and slow. Finding a new Earth might well be cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:FROM: The Desk of Lord Windy, Director of Defence and Procurement As far as I know it isn't possible to refit PDCs in the current version, so it's worth noting that no matter what kind of missile you put in the ICBM bases their fire controls are limited to a range of 50,000km. You may be able to get around this by designing missiles with built in sensors; I haven't had much experience in that area. Even 10 is pretty large for an Aurora missile, though. Size 24 missiles are approaching the size of small fighters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Just to clarify, a missile launcher can launch a single missile of that size or smaller; a size 24 launcher can't fire four size 6 missiles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:Welp, I guess this means the York class is about to become obsolete. Civilians wont build a ship that has been designated obsolete, at least, so you can control what they build. But yeah, civilian decision making is effected by turn length, but mostly because that particular route was to the moon; If a route takes eight hours, they'll run it once and then wait for the next turn before doing anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:In other words, death to all civilians. I'm researching tractor beams ASAP so I can drag them into deep space or the sun or something. Drag them to your shipyards and use the scrap setting  . That way you get something out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Saros posted:Oh gods I just loaded up my game and my entire 3rd fleet with all my modern combat ships has somehow switched to NPR control. I think they are the precursors and they are implacably hostile, I have been fighting them for control of a system for the better part of a decade and I thought I had finally won. You'd need the designer password to change that sort of thing, I think. I can't give it to you but if you want I could fix your save. Alternately, register on the official forums and ask the programmer for the password.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:I assume PDC mounted meson weapons don't suffer the whole "can't shoot through the atmosphere" problem that ship based systems suffer? Meson cannons can shoot through anything, including shields, armor, planetary atmosphere, and planets themselves.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Morrow posted:With the caveat that they have very short range and deal a single point of damage. Researching the basics of meson weaponry would take slightly less than six months, if we devote all of our research capacity to it. However, they'd be able to absolutely wreck the Red ICBM capability, and the research done here could eventually be applied to more versatile beam weapons. And of course, anti-missile-missiles use the same tech as anti-communist-missiles
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
I realize that I don't have any position of note (I like to think of myself as an independent think tank), but I have a concern no one is mentioning. We know the Federation surveyed Mars, and it seems likely that they found the ruins too. I can't imagine that they'll sit back and let us gain sole access to the ruins and what is likely impressive alien technology. So, basically, if we transport engineers to Mars, how do we defend the archaeological dig? Because if the Federation has any ability whatsoever to contest our claim, I'm pretty sure they're going to try, and try soon.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
The stalemate on Earth is dependent on the fact that Earth has an atmosphere that prevents a single spacecraft from vaporizing ground units from orbit. I feel obliged to point out that the Martian atmosphere is extremely thin, and probably wouldn't block even an extremely small laser or railgun. Counting on defending Mars with ground troops is probably not a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
General Antares posted:In all seriousness this does sound like door in the face. Do they even have colonies in space let alone the ability to project power outside of Earth? They have a new ship design with unknown capabilities. Assuming they were working on weapons and support systems while we were developing the designs to exploit the Martian ruins, it could be decently armed.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Nice meson tech looks nice. The cool thing about Aurora is it allows you to do things like that. Unfortunately, it gets pretty micromanagement heavy, which is the not as cool thing about Aurora.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:And speaking of the commies pissing, am I right in assuming that any meson-armed missile defense base would also be able to attack the enemy's ground installations? Because if so we might want to build a few more of these than might be required for just point defense. If that is the case then maybe any meson cannon PDC design should be kept as small as possible with fewer weapons in favor of building more of them. That way, while each center would be more vulnerable to attack individually, the thing would be much harder to take out as a whole. It would also be more expandable on earth and other worlds too. Just some thoughts I had. Meson cannons are precision weapons and don't work against populations (which includes factories) or ground forces, but they could be used to blow up enemy PDCs or ships in orbit. Another vulnerable target no one has really mentioned is shipyards; they're in orbit and vulnerable both to planetary meson weapons or anything mounted by warships.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:One thing I'm unsure of is how area defense works with fire controllers. In this example all 6 weapons are tied into the single fire control so does that mean they will all fire on the same missile when set to area defense or what? If so then we will have to revisit this design. With one fire control, all six weapons will fire on the same missile salvo. This is a bit sub-optimal but not that bad. Other than that, PDCs can't be refit with new tech so it might be worthwhile to aim for a turret with 5,000 km/s tracking speed to match our current fire controls, and then develop a better turret later when better fire controls are available. A small sensor would be nice as well; while another PDC could paint the targets with its own sensor, it's unfortunately extremely obvious what the source of the sensor is. If the Federation has meson weapons as well, they could take out the sensor base and leave the rest of our bases blind. Bremen fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
bgreman posted:Actually, PDCs can be refit. It's on the Industry tab.  It doesn't actually work, unless that got fixed in a recent version. It'll let you do it, but the old PDC doesn't get updated.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Quick question, how re you guys designing stuff, is there an aurora ship designer I can download, or something. I see all these cool ideas being made and I want to chip in. Aurora is free, I suspect they just used that.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:Out of curiosity, is the UN bound by any treaties against building anti-missile defense stations? They're simply planetary defense weapons, it's not our fault if spacecraft move so fast that anything that can target them can also swat missiles out of the sky. We found alien ruins on Mars, after all, so clearly its our duty to the Human race to make sure Earth is safe.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
I can't imagine that the Federation has the capability to make a 20,000 ton military ship; I suspect it's a freighter or a colony ship.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
What I find interesting is that the feds apparently detected our new bases, but I don't remember being notified they had new bases as well. Unless I missed it, we didn't need to be nearly as defensive when they asked what the bases did.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
bgreman posted:The UN's DSTS picked the new Federation PDC up the instant it was created. Did we get notified of this and I just missed it? I was asking because they seemed suspicious of our bases, but apparently they already had some of their own.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:I have a quick, question, about how many maintenance facilities are we going to need to maintain a decent sized fleet? I don't want to blindly build a butt ton of stuff without knowing how much we should have. You can maintain an unlimited number of ships, but the maximum size you can maintain is 200 tons x number of maintenance facilities. So if our largest (military) ship was 4,000 tons, then we'd need 20 maintenance facilities, no matter how many ships there were in the fleet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Why would they have to sacrifice anything? The Moskva is 1500 tons, so a shipyard that can build two at once is still half the size of the yard for one Berlin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
The only weapon civilian ships can use is a dedicated anti-missile system, which wouldn't help if the Moskva have some sort of direct fire weapon. And we don't have the tech to make one anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
SPERMCUBE.ORG posted:By "super freighter" you mean a freighter with 5 or more cargo holds, right? If so then we don't actually have a design for a super freighter. A few pages back I guessed that a ship like that would be around 40,000-50,000 tons but I'm not exactly sure. But to whomever ends up taking a crack at it I strongly suggest you design it along with a new colony ship and make their sizes and build point values similar enough that we can build both in one shipyard. That would be perfect for the expansion we're doing. There's two schools of freighter design in Aurora, fast and slow. Slow freighters are cheaper and smaller, and are the ones I normally use, but there's another school of thought that having freighters with nearly half their mass in engines means that they move stuff faster, and therefor can actually move more than a larger number of slow freighters. For what it's worth, a slow freighter with a 25,000 ton cargo bay would probably be about 35,000 tons for us, and a fast one would be 45,000 or so. Waiting for new engines is good, though, because replacing engines in a refit is prohibitively expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
What's the point of turrets that can track at 10,000 km/s, but fire controls that can only handle 5,000km/s?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
I see two possibilities; either the new class is a small troop transport, or it's a new class of warship. If it's a warship, we're getting heavily outnumbered in space, and that would make me suspect the feds are up to something.
Bremen fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
I've been trying not to pipe in, because I play Aurora a lot and pretty much have my own standard (boring) designs. But at this point I think the Feds are about to kill us all so I thought I should chip in. For the cruiser, I'd reduce the fire controls to 1 (there are advantages to multiple missile fire controls, but I don't think it's worthwhile on such a small ship), strip out the reactors, and replace the passive sensor with an active one. Give it three layers of armor; that's my golden rule for light armor since it can take hits from most small direct fire weapons or any missile with a warhead <16. Having one capable of lobbing a bunch of missiles might be nice, though; my main worry is that if the Moskva is armed with a direct fire weapon then in numbers they'll probably be able to shoot down small numbers of torpedoes quite easily. For the destroyer, weapons track at the lesser of fire control or weapon speed. Seeing as the ship is actually faster than the fire control tracking speed, you'd want non-turreted mesons on it. Alternately, if you want fast tracking weapons for point defense, you'd want a better fire control. But turret tracking speed that isn't matched by fire control is just wasted space. It also appears to only have half the power required by its weapons, and lacks armor or an active sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Not sure if you included it, but ships of 1,000 tons or smaller don't need bridges. Can save 50 tons (and maybe fit some armor) if you didn't take that off; ships have them by default.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
ChubbyPitbull posted:Ahhh, roger that. So then the Reacotr is producing 1.5 power per 5 seconds, and for maximum fire rate the guns need (2x) 1 power per 5 seconds, and the Elba is theoretically under-powered? Yes. The guns will actually recharge .75 each 5 seconds, firing every 20 seconds rather than a theoretical 15 if they had more power available.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
ChubbyPitbull posted:What's the ultimate goal vis-à-vis the Eurasian Federation? Divide the galaxies between us, or eventually joining forces/one world government through peaceful or non-peaceful means? Find a new (better) Earth, evacuate everything, and then laugh at those backwards flatlanders who stayed behind. That's how the NATO vs Soviet Union official game went, and I thought it was awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
For what it's worth, the main consumers of corundium are mines (the diggy kind, not the explodey kind) and energy weapons. So there's probably not a lot we can do to deal with the crunch other than find new sources (stopping building mines is never a solution to a mineral crunch). I doubt that missiles or ground unit production use any corundium at all. Berlins might, but only in very small amounts.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 07:07
|
|