|
It's been a little while since I played Aurora (UNFRAD for life!), and I'm not totally familiar with where our tech level is at in this game, but wouldn't it be feasible for us to go for a cruiser with multiple fire controls and Size 1 launchers, that could be a dedicated AEGIS ship for us? The range doesn't even need to be that long, since they'd be used primarily for defensive fire -- just needs to be enough to give more salvos than a gauss cannon will. Even having just one of those in the fleet would help mitigate the impact of incoming blobs of 50x missile salvos. Neuter the enemy's range advantage and they'll be forced to fight us in beam range.
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
I mean, even if we're only getting 10-25% interception rates, that's not an insignificant amount of mitigation, especially since it happens at range, before our CIWS/Gauss/PD kicks in, and has the added bonus of being able to be used offensively (either to sandpaper down wounded ships, or crack fighters, etc.) I know they work well in Aurora, from previous games; I just don't know if they're feasible at our current tech level vs. known IC missile speeds.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Are we sure those Terran ships aren't headed to Pluto, btw? Because as far as I'm concerned there is nothing more important to us than protecting our current control of Pluto, and the possibility of establishing a dominant position in our inevitable interstellar, trans-species politics.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
I'm stuck on a terrible road trip, and can't get onto the spreadsheet to dorf myself. Can someone please add me to the list, with preference for a missile boat of some kind (a CLAA would be preferable, but a DDG would work too.) TIA.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Can't you just put all the fighters in a big net and tow them behind the carrier like nuclear armed crabs? Deadliest Catch: Mars
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Here's what I'd like to see re: jump points and ownership.quote:1. Jump points, whether stabilized or not, cannot be owned by any party. Note: this includes nothing on what the process is to *claim* exclusive ownership. That's a secondary issue. This does a number things for us. Clauses #1 and #3 somewhat mitigates the whole "welp, they're camping the jump gate" problem. (For those unfamiliar with Aurora, going through a jump gate causes "exhaustion" on the other side ranging from tens of seconds to a couple minutes. You are highly vulnerable to being trashed by ships camping the other side of the gate). Clause #2 still allows us to exclusively mine the gently caress out of whatever systems we want. However, because it applies only to signatories, anyone late to the party is fair game (e.g. aliens, a resurgent IC, the TFS if they don't sign now, etc.). It also allows for a puppet state relationship, or a mutually agreed scenario where we "split" a system. Clauses #3 and #4 keeps us from being locked behind a dead-end jump chain. Systems with no inhabitable planets may still have a jump chain that can be developed. They may also have asteroids, comets, etc. with resources we can grab. Clause #5 means that the "end point" of a chain is also fair game. It also means that we get a window in which we can try and gently caress with Terran's chain of ownership (or help prevent us from getting trapped in a dead end) if we can colonize a planet in a system *before* an exit JP is located. The main way this might come up is in a hostile system, where surveys can't be completed until the threats are eliminated. It gives us an opportunity for "to the victor go the spoils". Also, the provision of Clause #3 means that if anyone tries to do this to us, we should be able to see it coming. (Yes, this works in reverse, but hopefully we're smarter than our opponents). Clause #2 and Clause #3 combine to give us protection not just against mineral exploitation but also lovely surveillance activities. Snoop ship pooping around? Trying to sneak a DSTS in there? Better think twice about the ramifications of getting caught. Leif. fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Might not be a bad time to revisit my proposed framework for JP and interstellar passage treaties. In this context, it'd give us both guaranteed rights of passage through either JP, while allowing us to maintain our pre-agreed exclusive ownership of the systems originally agreed too (I'm operating under the logical assumption that there is no way we give up our newfound system to Terra), and would reduce tensions in the future if this were to happen again, elsewhere in the jump chain. https://forums.somethingawful.com/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=476213472 Leif. posted:Here's what I'd like to see re: jump points and ownership.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Why can't there be an option 1C that has us pursuing a hybrid design for one or two classes, but continue also with specialization for the rest?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:That's what option 1A is. The question is "should we build hybrid ships at all", because there are a lot of people who say No. I don't see how you get that? The question was "Should we continue with specialized, or should we develop hybrids?" quote:1. Should we continue developing Specialized ASM Cruisers such as the Argyre, or should we develop a Hybrid Design that dedicates tonnage to include secondary beam weaponry? I guess I can see an argument that 1B really just means "one" hybrid design, but the way discussion has gone, it seems to be implying that 1A is "base entire fleet around specialized" and 1B is "base entire fleet around hybrids". I'm advocating for a 1C which is "Continue developing specialized ships, but add in one or two hybrid's for multirole/frigate work."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:The giant spinal doom lasers remind me of when someone was telling me about the Star Wars EU, and apparently in one of the books the Empire decides it can't really afford ANOTHER Death Star, but they have one of the planet killer guns lying around so gently caress it let's just strap some engines on that bitch and call it a ship! http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darksaber_(novel)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Sweeeeeeet, I'm commanding one of our (new) DDGs! Can I change the name?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Leif. posted:Sweeeeeeet, I'm commanding one of our (new) DDGs! Can I change the name? ^ Would prefer to name it the Hwasong-Scinfaxi*. *Trivia: "Hwasong" is the prefix for North Korea's ballistic missile family. Translated, it means "Mars". The Scinfaxi was the ballistic missile submarine from Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, which aside from being one of my all-time favorite games, has all kinds of parallels to this LP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Hey Saros, can you double check whether my ship got renamed?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Yeah, looks like it got missed (based on one of the screenshots several pages back), if you wouldn't mind renaming:Leif. posted:^ Would prefer to name it the Hwasong-Scinfaxi*.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Pollux class representing like a motherfucker right here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
plan death moon then dominion of sol -e- that’s preference order, not temporal order.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
1)Yes 2) Seb's choice 3) Cryo's choice
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Saros posted:Thread still lives, it's just hard to make updates from a yacht in the Mediterranean You're on Below Deck Mediterranean, aren't you? Does Captain Sandy serve fartcrabs on her yacht?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 12:02
|
|
