Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Questions  (Read 183906 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 135 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #525 on: December 25, 2019, 01:17:52 PM »
Minor question/request.  It has been awhile since I played VB6 but last I remembered, military academies had a generic name that was unchangeable, 'Earth Military Academy' or something like it.  Can it be possible in C# to give academies a custom name like 'Yale University', 'Earth Forces Academy', or 'Terran Science School'?
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #526 on: December 28, 2019, 06:21:11 PM »
The newest ground combat detection explanation shows, that 50% of the time the shown number of enemy troops will be above the real value, and the other 50% below the real one. Wouldn’t it then be possible to „guess“ the real number?

As it’s explained, if the real number is 1000, the shown number can be between 500 and 2000. if in one round it shows 700 and in the next one 1690, then 750, 720, 1580 and so on, one could guess that the real numbers must be around 1000. Kinda defeats the purpose, right?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #527 on: December 28, 2019, 06:49:35 PM »
The newest ground combat detection explanation shows, that 50% of the time the shown number of enemy troops will be above the real value, and the other 50% below the real one. Wouldn’t it then be possible to „guess“ the real number?

As it’s explained, if the real number is 1000, the shown number can be between 500 and 2000. if in one round it shows 700 and in the next one 1690, then 750, 720, 1580 and so on, one could guess that the real numbers must be around 1000. Kinda defeats the purpose, right?

You are going to know fairly accurately within a few rounds anyway. If you happen to get one extreme and then the other in the first round or two, you will know a little sooner, but that is unlikely. This isn't intended to hide enemy numbers but to create uncertainty in the first few hours and days of an engagement. Also, bear in mind this is done separately for each type of enemy unit, so you might be high on tanks and low on infantry at the same time.
 
The following users thanked this post: AlStar, Garfunkel, TMaekler, JustAnotherDude

Offline Ogamaga

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • O
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #528 on: January 01, 2020, 07:49:56 AM »
Will C# Aurora be installed as an update, a new installation, or something else? Also, will it interfere with switching back to VB6 Aurora to continue existing games beyond what updating from 6. 43 to 7. 10 did?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2020, 08:06:32 AM by Ogamaga »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #529 on: January 01, 2020, 08:11:35 AM »
Will C# Aurora be installed as an update, a new installation, or something else? Also, will it interfere with switching back to VB6 Aurora to continue existing games beyond what updating from 6. 43 to 7. 10 did?

It will be a completely new installation and will be a separate game to VB6 Aurora.
 

Offline vorpal+5

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 599
  • Thanked: 121 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #530 on: January 01, 2020, 11:38:12 PM »
Civilians are not part of their government, so you can't control them. However, in C# you can choose to play without them and therefore control all your colony ships.

Well, I understand some of your reasoning (they do what they like) and the game balance issue here, but there should be some plausibility. Like (1) a system is off limit and the military enforces this 'blockade', either by preventing jumping through a wormhole (government controlled jump station right?) or having a military ship Board And Search civilian ships and rerouting them.

And (2) as for specifically colony population, if an outpost is a military installation with 50.000 contract workers, then there is 0% chance a colony ship will be allowed to land there.

But that's your game and if you feel the gameplay around civies is ok, because 'reasons', then ok anyway.  :)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #531 on: January 02, 2020, 03:39:58 AM »
Civilians are not part of their government, so you can't control them. However, in C# you can choose to play without them and therefore control all your colony ships.

Well, I understand some of your reasoning (they do what they like) and the game balance issue here, but there should be some plausibility. Like (1) a system is off limit and the military enforces this 'blockade', either by preventing jumping through a wormhole (government controlled jump station right?) or having a military ship Board And Search civilian ships and rerouting them.

And (2) as for specifically colony population, if an outpost is a military installation with 50.000 contract workers, then there is 0% chance a colony ship will be allowed to land there.

But that's your game and if you feel the gameplay around civies is ok, because 'reasons', then ok anyway.  :)

The game play question in abstract terms is how much control the player should have over the civilian traffic. If the answer is total control, then the 'civilian traffic' would simply be another arm of the government/military forces. My concept for civilians is to add some randomness and chaos to the growth of an Empire, which is the opposite of total control. However, you can gain total control in several ways. For example, if you can block civilians from entering specific systems, then you can simply restrict every system except the ones you specifically need. Equally, if you can block specific population as 'military outposts', you can block every population except the one you want civilians to colonize.

I have no problem in conceptual terms with the idea of military-only outposts or military systems, but that mechanic can't simply be a back-door to total military control of civilian traffic. I am open to suggestions on those lines.
 

Offline Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #532 on: January 02, 2020, 04:54:52 AM »
I have no problem in conceptual terms with the idea of military-only outposts or military systems, but that mechanic can't simply be a back-door to total military control of civilian traffic. I am open to suggestions on those lines.

How about flagging a colony as military-only drops wealth production there by 50%? Irrelevant for truly military bases, because their wealth will be minimal, but it's not something you'll want to do on a civilian colony just to stop its growth.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #533 on: January 02, 2020, 04:55:35 AM »
The game play question in abstract terms is how much control the player should have over the civilian traffic. If the answer is total control, then the 'civilian traffic' would simply be another arm of the government/military forces. My concept for civilians is to add some randomness and chaos to the growth of an Empire, which is the opposite of total control. However, you can gain total control in several ways. For example, if you can block civilians from entering specific systems, then you can simply restrict every system except the ones you specifically need. Equally, if you can block specific population as 'military outposts', you can block every population except the one you want civilians to colonize.

I have no problem in conceptual terms with the idea of military-only outposts or military systems, but that mechanic can't simply be a back-door to total military control of civilian traffic. I am open to suggestions on those lines.

I can see your point Steve, I could counter that just about all real world governments, in all periods of history, had military restricted zones where civilians were not allowed no matter what. Personally I think it would make sense, for any kind of possible government, to say that some systems are restricted to government ships only. Obligatory: "You are not allowed to walk into Area 51" joke here.

Ultimately it's a matter of interpretation and game balance. You seem to prefer a "corporate" government, where civilians have very few limitations. Also, you prefer this solution for gameplay balance, in order to "have more chaos"
As a player, I would very much prefer to be able to have more control, not to game the system, but in order to be able to
1) Create military-only colonies and installations (for roleplay!) and
2) Be able to expeditely evacuate a small colony in case of severe threat. Because when enemies are coming, I'd like to be able to tell the civilians to go away right now. Not to see them bringing MORE civilians to a system I KNOW will be invaded in a matter of months

Basically I would like to be able to play with civilians on, while having control in the aforementioned situations. I will also add that as a single player game, ultimately if some players decide to game the system, that's only their problem, not mine.

I do not have any magical solution, I do have a possible one, if you're willing to code it. Once again, a switch.
At game start, allow players to decide whether they want to be able to restrict this civilians behaviour. With this switch off, everything would work as it does now. With this switch on, players would be able to restrict systems and/or forbid planets for migration no matter their size. Maybe with the added caveat that a restricted colony or system has a severe income penalty, 50% or 75%, to simulate the wealth loss/malcontent of the population.

Yes I know, it's ANOTHER switch. It's the only solution I can think of though.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 05:00:42 AM by Zincat »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #534 on: January 02, 2020, 05:16:54 AM »
Yes, on reflection, I think I am being too restrictive in order to avoid an exploit and it is becoming dogmatic on my part.

If I add an option to declare a system or a colony as military, then it would be down to the player if he wants to abuse that in the way described in my previous post. After all, there are many ways to exploit Aurora if that was the goal of the player. I'll take a look at some options this evening.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #535 on: January 02, 2020, 06:33:54 AM »
Productivity penalties as a result of a colony's political status isn't anything new in Aurora either, and I for one wouldn't mind the ability to shift it around. There's a lot of history about how colonies are treated by the originating country, and how that impacts a lot of things on the social and economic level. Seeing that reflected in Aurora would be nice.

For example, a newly established colony could have a wealth and trade generation penalty and a lower demand of PPV, but have a garrison demand instead. We already effectively see trade generation penalties; smaller populations produce not only less goods, but a smaller variety of those goods as well.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #536 on: January 02, 2020, 08:20:48 AM »
I've added the restrictions on civilian movement. Change link below and a screenshot from the galactic map showing two restricted systems near Tyranid space.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg117794#msg117794

 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, Alsadius

Offline Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #537 on: January 02, 2020, 08:45:45 AM »
I assume civilians won't path through a restricted system either, correct? For example, if Aurelia is a restricted system, a colony in Equinox will never see a civilian ship either, correct?

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #538 on: January 02, 2020, 09:37:27 AM »
I assume civilians won't path through a restricted system either, correct? For example, if Aurelia is a restricted system, a colony in Equinox will never see a civilian ship either, correct?

Yes, correct. Restricted systems are removed from the path-finding algorithm when a civilian ship is calculating a course.

I had already added a similar option to block specific systems from the new Auto-route option for player fleets. This is for those situations when there are multiple routes to a destination and you want to force the algorithm to choose a specific path, like blocking toll roads on satnav :)
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

Offline vorpal+5

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 599
  • Thanked: 121 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #539 on: January 02, 2020, 10:59:12 PM »
Thanks a bunch Steve. Some devs studios around could get some lessons from you regarding behavior and open mindedness.

And indeed, Aurora is SP and can be abused a lot if the player wants that. This is not our intent, for most of us I think.

Plus, if I get it right, forbidding a colony to civilians also means no transportation through the contracting system and trade goods, so there is a drawback.