Damage Control Expansion - Attack Ships on Fire

[AuroraSteve]

@Spookyfam

The main issues I’m trying to address with these suggestions are:

1. The lack excitement and human (ships’ crew) struggle in aurora’s combat.
2. The disproportional advantage that a minor, e.g. 5%, speed advantage gives to ships in combat.
3. The lack of any kind of combat other than “decisive battle” in aurora.

I don’t know how much Aurora you have played, but I haven’t had the same experience.

Firstly, Aurora is an operational and strategic game, not a tactical one, so the modelling of crew is at the level of total crew, casualties, etc. plus the capabilities of the officers. Besides, the ‘struggle’ of the crew is effectively represented by the actions of these ship aided by some imagination.

A 5% speed advantage doesn’t help you against missiles, or longer-ranged energy weapons, or jump point defences, or being surrounded. There are many options to overcome speed advantage. The only situation where it really proves decisive is in deep space against an enemy with shorter-ranged energy weapons. If you are the slower ship, you should try to avoid that situation.

There are many battles that are not decisive, which is why I asked about your playing experience. Read my latest campaign (Suns Never Set) for the long running series of battles in Delta Eridani between my own colony on the fifth planet and a Precursor stronghold on the fourth planet.

Beyond that example though there are many battles where I have engaged and then disengaged without destroying the enemy.

With regard to your specific suggestions:

1. There is already an enemy in the game with damage over time weapons.
2. One of the most important principles in Aurora is that the internal physics must be consistent. Giving ships less damage or more damage because they are shooting or not shooting doesn’t fit that principle. There is no ‘all power to shields’ option.
3. The same applies. There is no reasons that weapons would cause more or less damage because a ship is approaching or running.
4. There is no reason that a ship fleeing would be able to move out of range, just because it is ‘fleeing’. If you get caught in deep space by a faster ship with better weapons, you are going to die unless you reach a jump point, are reinforced or you enemy runs out of maintenance supplies or fuel.

I’ve run quickly through your doc and I understand there is a lot of effort involved on your part. However, bear in mind that Aurora has twenty years of development, testing, adding player suggestions, etc. so the game balance is very good now (in the sense there is no optimal approach). Any changes need to ensure that balance is maintained, while giving the player new meaningful decisions and not adding micromanagement that outweighs the gameplay benefit.

1. I’ve considered fire before, but a combat-oriented spacecraft would be setup to vent atmosphere to quickly quell any fire.

2. You have made a lot of mechanical suggestions around shields, weapon failures, etc. but you need to explain why this would be better than the current mechanics, using the above principles. Also remember that Aurora is not a tactical game so mechanics should reflect that.

3. The whole point of box launchers is they can only be loaded/unloaded at port facilities.

4. Reactors won’t explode differently just because the ship isn’t in active combat.

5. Steering control is too tactical. There is no facing in the game for example, or weapons arcs.