Hey guys, hope you enjoy the video, quick update here, I have successfully applied for and been accepted to the youtube partner program which now gives me access to Ads let me know your thoughts on this and as a forewarning I will be placing some ads on certain videos just to test it out and get data on if it is worth it to do it or not, and your feedback on this will also mean a lot so do let me know, I will also make a disclaimer for which videos will have ads on them.
In my opinion, of course you should place ads on if you can, but put them at the beginning or the end pref not in the middle. Congrats on reaching this milestone :)
Alright am gonna be testing out ads then, and I have loaded ads onto this video to check how it works out, I want to see how youtube finds my content as well aka if i get demonetized or not etc
FYI: the 'au' in Gauss is pronounced like the 'ow' in cow, and the ss is a hard s like in 'stop'. It's a german last name; Carl Friedrich Gauss, for whom the Gauss unit of magnetic field strength is named, was a mathematician and physicist who made a lot of contributions to the understanding of magnetism.
Great video! All those things I had to find on the web and this is great because everything is in one place. Two things to criticize: You are overusing the phrase "stuff like that", it is normal for people to use filler words/phrases, but if you want to be better TH-camr, it is better if you would work on that. Second is that timestamps on the video bar are a little bit off, the fighter is too late, primary military... is too early, etc. But in any regards, I appreciate your work
Thanks for the kind comment and the constructive criticism i will adjust the timestamps slightly and also its an ever going thing to work on my ability to speak but its not too big if a thing so i dont mind that much
Neither is simple they both have negatives and pros so you have to choose what is best for you if thats beams cause you dont need to worry about micro as much as carrier or logistics as much as missiles then go beams and vice versa
Also, including gauss and railguns as beams is pushing it a bit. Lol They're a entirely different branch of tech (kinetics), that frankly likely only uses the same fire control because Steve saw no time benefit to coding a separate fire control.
They are explicitly a beam weapon, they use a beam fire control and act in pretty much the same way, railguns even use power, the fact is they are beam weapons, as essentailly anything in aurora that is not missiles is.
@@DefranStrategy and likely only because coding renamed references to the exact same behaviour just had zero merit to Steve when deciding when to spend his time. The fact thst both are isolated to a tech branch outright referred to a 'kinetics' defines them as non-beam in terms of weapon type though. Referring to them as beams is simply a clearer way to explain them game mechanically as they reuse the same behavioural code.
"much harder to detect than BIG 10,000 ton carriers" me looks at my escort frigate (14,000 tons) looks at my light destroyer design (18,000 tons) looks at my light cruiser (32,000 tons) ummm I think we have different definitions of BIG. LUL
It really depends on what state of the game your in for the confederation a military ship of 10,000 tons is a large vessel, the largest vessel currently in service is the Vanguard Class destroyer escort which weighs in at 7500 tons, plans for bigger vessels are on the way though. so it puts it into perspective on how you define big, really the definitions change as you progress
I take it that hybridizing is something you can get away with, right? For example, if I have a beam doctrine but decide it would be funny to throw a ship with 100 box launchers in for good measure, that's fine, right?
As long as that design will be useful in some way or a useful addition, for example you could have a big beam fleet but also massive torpedos that are short range and used just before you engage a target allowing you to cause some damage and disable a few ships first etc.
Missile doctrine negative 'c' honestly exists more for energy weapons than it does for missiles. Making a missile that will pretty much be impossible to intercept with decent pd hit chance is possible even at low tech levels it just requires more of a range and damage trade off until missile tech matures.... the only way using missiles can ever have means of doing no damage is if the player defines a personal line in the sand of not being worth the trade off, though that doesn't change the ability to make a 78,000km/s missile with 1 damage and the same max firing range as equivalent teched lasers, that unlike the laser can be stacked 3-4 times for same space and pretty muvh be assured of some damage ouput. Energy weapons however don't hàve that aspect to them, you have a 2.5million range laser, you're still only going to be able to fire that thing from like 600,000km with advanced fire control tech with a hit chance of like 15-20% per shot at that range, and needing to get close to half actual firing range to make it a 50/50 chance to hit anything.... and during all that time getting to shots to be a 50/50, your firepower is effectively zero given typical refire rates.
The point was in regards to the fact that when you come up against an enemy navy with your navy and you are using missiles you are either able to alpha strike through their PD or not and if you cant then you effectively cant do any damage at that point, where as with beam weapons if you are close enough nothing can actually intercept beam weapons so when you hit you are going to do something.
@@DefranStrategy making a missile that can be fired in volleys for similar tonnage cost as a single energy turret that will get through pretty much any pd your going to encounter in Aurora doesn't take that much though. What the tech advancements would do is just ease off the damage and range trade offs such a missile design would need. Yes at early tech such a missile requires trade offs of around perhaps 1 damage and marginally more range than a equivalent energy weapon, but the return would still be assured damage.... more than you'd get from the unreliable nature of energy weapons... and the flexibility of missiles means you can use both the assured damage design and 'maybe damage' designs side by side. Though i suppose this depends on if we are talking about design philosophy for what you'll encounter in aurora? Or design philosophies for non-existant things that only take place in theoretical scenarios.
The point assumes that you are not building a navy that knows exactly what it is facing as such missiles can be hit or miss in this regard and so can beams I discuss that about then as well
Hey guys, hope you enjoy the video, quick update here, I have successfully applied for and been accepted to the youtube partner program which now gives me access to Ads let me know your thoughts on this and as a forewarning I will be placing some ads on certain videos just to test it out and get data on if it is worth it to do it or not, and your feedback on this will also mean a lot so do let me know, I will also make a disclaimer for which videos will have ads on them.
In my opinion, of course you should place ads on if you can, but put them at the beginning or the end pref not in the middle. Congrats on reaching this milestone :)
Hey, ads are ok. I'd rather get a couple of ads and support you that way than not support your channel at all.
Alright am gonna be testing out ads then, and I have loaded ads onto this video to check how it works out, I want to see how youtube finds my content as well aka if i get demonetized or not etc
FYI: the 'au' in Gauss is pronounced like the 'ow' in cow, and the ss is a hard s like in 'stop'. It's a german last name; Carl Friedrich Gauss, for whom the Gauss unit of magnetic field strength is named, was a mathematician and physicist who made a lot of contributions to the understanding of magnetism.
thats some nice information and i will try to pronounce it that way but I will most definitely forget due to numerous factors. lol
@@DefranStrategy Lol no worries - just wanted to help :3
Great video! All those things I had to find on the web and this is great because everything is in one place. Two things to criticize: You are overusing the phrase "stuff like that", it is normal for people to use filler words/phrases, but if you want to be better TH-camr, it is better if you would work on that. Second is that timestamps on the video bar are a little bit off, the fighter is too late, primary military... is too early, etc. But in any regards, I appreciate your work
Thanks for the kind comment and the constructive criticism i will adjust the timestamps slightly and also its an ever going thing to work on my ability to speak but its not too big if a thing so i dont mind that much
After watching the video, I'm correct if I think it seems the easiest path for a newbie it's beam weapons?
Neither is simple they both have negatives and pros so you have to choose what is best for you if thats beams cause you dont need to worry about micro as much as carrier or logistics as much as missiles then go beams and vice versa
Also, including gauss and railguns as beams is pushing it a bit. Lol
They're a entirely different branch of tech (kinetics), that frankly likely only uses the same fire control because Steve saw no time benefit to coding a separate fire control.
They are explicitly a beam weapon, they use a beam fire control and act in pretty much the same way, railguns even use power, the fact is they are beam weapons, as essentailly anything in aurora that is not missiles is.
@@DefranStrategy and likely only because coding renamed references to the exact same behaviour just had zero merit to Steve when deciding when to spend his time. The fact thst both are isolated to a tech branch outright referred to a 'kinetics' defines them as non-beam in terms of weapon type though.
Referring to them as beams is simply a clearer way to explain them game mechanically as they reuse the same behavioural code.
At this point its just arguing semantics, all that matters is that the viewer understands what i am referring to
"much harder to detect than BIG 10,000 ton carriers" me looks at my escort frigate (14,000 tons) looks at my light destroyer design (18,000 tons) looks at my light cruiser (32,000 tons) ummm I think we have different definitions of BIG. LUL
It really depends on what state of the game your in for the confederation a military ship of 10,000 tons is a large vessel, the largest vessel currently in service is the Vanguard Class destroyer escort which weighs in at 7500 tons, plans for bigger vessels are on the way though.
so it puts it into perspective on how you define big, really the definitions change as you progress
Building my first missile tonight!
I take it that hybridizing is something you can get away with, right? For example, if I have a beam doctrine but decide it would be funny to throw a ship with 100 box launchers in for good measure, that's fine, right?
As long as that design will be useful in some way or a useful addition, for example you could have a big beam fleet but also massive torpedos that are short range and used just before you engage a target allowing you to cause some damage and disable a few ships first etc.
Missile doctrine negative 'c' honestly exists more for energy weapons than it does for missiles. Making a missile that will pretty much be impossible to intercept with decent pd hit chance is possible even at low tech levels it just requires more of a range and damage trade off until missile tech matures.... the only way using missiles can ever have means of doing no damage is if the player defines a personal line in the sand of not being worth the trade off, though that doesn't change the ability to make a 78,000km/s missile with 1 damage and the same max firing range as equivalent teched lasers, that unlike the laser can be stacked 3-4 times for same space and pretty muvh be assured of some damage ouput.
Energy weapons however don't hàve that aspect to them, you have a 2.5million range laser, you're still only going to be able to fire that thing from like 600,000km with advanced fire control tech with a hit chance of like 15-20% per shot at that range, and needing to get close to half actual firing range to make it a 50/50 chance to hit anything.... and during all that time getting to shots to be a 50/50, your firepower is effectively zero given typical refire rates.
The point was in regards to the fact that when you come up against an enemy navy with your navy and you are using missiles you are either able to alpha strike through their PD or not and if you cant then you effectively cant do any damage at that point, where as with beam weapons if you are close enough nothing can actually intercept beam weapons so when you hit you are going to do something.
@@DefranStrategy making a missile that can be fired in volleys for similar tonnage cost as a single energy turret that will get through pretty much any pd your going to encounter in Aurora doesn't take that much though. What the tech advancements would do is just ease off the damage and range trade offs such a missile design would need. Yes at early tech such a missile requires trade offs of around perhaps 1 damage and marginally more range than a equivalent energy weapon, but the return would still be assured damage.... more than you'd get from the unreliable nature of energy weapons... and the flexibility of missiles means you can use both the assured damage design and 'maybe damage' designs side by side.
Though i suppose this depends on if we are talking about design philosophy for what you'll encounter in aurora? Or design philosophies for non-existant things that only take place in theoretical scenarios.
The point assumes that you are not building a navy that knows exactly what it is facing as such missiles can be hit or miss in this regard and so can beams I discuss that about then as well