ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Aurora 4x C# - Tutorial - Ship Design - General Ship Design Philosophy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- In todays episode of the ship deisgn series we go over the philosophy I have and look for when designing ships and the reasoning behind it.
I find this design philosophy very useful. I find that if I design my forces in tandem to work as a task force it is much easier to get an effective fighting force. Something else that I find useful, and something you might consider for the next design videos, is to make a checklist to make sure you have everything covered. For example, I always make sure that I check my deployment time, fuel levels, fire controls, desired fleet speed, etc. before I finalize a design. Keep up the good work! 1000 subscribers, here we come!
Thanks for the support, am glad it helped out, its really just about laying out the logical steps and ideas behind ships and navies when you design them, and yea some kind of checklist could definitely be implemented
@@DefranStrategy I actually got some very valuable information when you designed the Vanguard. I did not know that a fire control's range would increase accuracy even if your weapon cannot fire that far. My PD ships were not very effective. They will be better now :)
A good approach I have found to being more flexible in design is to come up with certain restrictions or traits on a empire at the start of a campaign that dictate what kind of design philosophy will work.
I recently did a pretty typical "Terran Empire" ruled by a mighty god emperor type theme campaign, in it ships were limited to ballistics and 1 particle lance only, no missiles and no other type of energy weapons. Ships had to be large, heavily armoured, relatively slow but pack a lot of firepower in their chosen role but very little flexibility with no use of shields, cloaking tech nor fighters/parasites.
Next campaign following that was a kind of non-expansionist advanced tech type empire. This time using what I'd considering more moderate sized ships (15-20k Tons being the largest non-commercial). Ships had to be very versatile and fast (A military ship under 10,000km/s would be a no-no) but they'd have little to no armour instead favouring very powerful moderate sized shields that could be packed onto the ships along with a range of ECM/ECCM/Cloaking devices. Weapon wise the only allowed tech was laser weaponry.
The need for versatility but in moderate sized packages in the 2nd scenario ended up giving birth to a 3 ship fleet composition made up of a single primary fleet command ship that would jump the 7 sized fleet and sported only 2 offensive quad energy turrets and actives. Then 6 variants of the command ship with the jump engine cut out in favour of 1 extra dual turret on top of the existing 2 quad with the extra empty space throw into 3,000 tons of hangar space.
The 3,000 tons was then used for each of the 6 ships to hold a dedicated point defence ship with 2 quad energy and 1 dual energy PD, with only 1 layer of armor and no shields but with a thermal output of only 250 strength, no EM output and a TCS of 60.
The hope was that anything firing missiles to warrant the need to undock the PD escorts would be far enough away to never see them..... it sort of worked up until I ran across a spoiler that I could easily intercept their size 4 ASMs all day long, but the need to close in with the energy weapons due to fire control range restraints eventually saw them get picked up and swarmed by size 1 76,000km/s AMMs.
Speaking of, why are beam fire control ranges so dang limited for their respective tech levels compared to the laser range scaling at tech tiers lower dammit! Why have laser weapons able to fire a maximum of 2mil+ km when beam fire control range tech at twice the RP cost even with 4x modifier on the designed component only pushes like 700-800k km? It's like 250,000RP for Beam Fire Control range 200,000km which only pushes max fire range to 800,000km if using 4x scaling... yet Laser focal and wave tech totalling around 100,000RP combined can push 2.5m km maximum range.
Think Steve may have done the BFC balancing figures after one or two glasses of wine. :)
Beam weapons increase range faster than their controls intentionally. They are meant to start doing more damage at the ranges they can hit at, rather than actually fire to their theoretical max ranges
I've played Aurora for a few years now, off and on, and I still suck! I'm learning a lot from your tutorial series, especially the thought behind why you're doing certain things. One thing I'd like to see, if you haven't done one yet, is how to tell what armament the enemy has and how to counteract it.
Again, really enjoying all your content and ONWARDS TO 1000!!
Thank you for the kind words, and to kinda answer what you are looking for, its quite hard to tell what an opponent has unless you have either Intel from ELINT modules aka spy modules or battle experience so first contact and your first battles are gonna be largely in the dark, as such its quite hard to make a specific video on it though am sure i will answer this more in future videos.
gud vid
Why does this video remind me of my recent thread on the Aurora 4x forums about the supply standing orders and exploration ship design preferences? :)
Because people think similarly? I rarely read anything from the forums nowadays
@@DefranStrategy lol probably.
Is interesting how the two collate though especially when it comes to the idea of varying design philosophy to meet specific situations, rather than just one static "Right way".
aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11832.0
I get why you don't read much on the forums now though, had a similar thing with the discord after seeing the same "Absolute things you must be doing in a design or you're wrong" points keep coming up when 98% of the "Must do's" are entirely dependent on fictional scenarios you'll never face in the actual game unless you artificially create it yourself.... or worse based on assumptions on C# being exactly like VB in certain cases without actually validating. heh
@@Tiki832 Yea i remember talking to you on there, but these are yea all my own ideas and way of looking at it, I made a video a while back that was exactly like this one but worse quality and explained worse that had the same kind of concepts so no copy hahaha, the main reason i dont do much on the forums anymore is cause i find it much more helpful to the community just to make videos to explain topics and subjects rather than answer it on an individual level, which allows me to spread information quicker then focusing time on helping a single individual
@@DefranStrategy The time and effort you've put into the videos on the channel has definitely done a fantastic job of giving a solid source to go not just to learn Aurora since C#, but also act as an amazing reference source to look up specific things when memory fails. Actually find them more useful a resource than even the Wiki was to me back in the VB days.
Certainly some people covering Aurora at the moment that could do with checking out your videos before tackling some subjects in their content, but perhaps they don't do so intentionally and use the partial fumbling learning approach as a channel quirk. :)
@@Tiki832 Are you happen chance referring to my spirit animal the "flamerst", that dude is extremely entertaining, i wonder if he would be up for a collab ^^. Also thanks for the kind words thats the intention so to see you and others so invested in the channel and the content means the absolute world to me