Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 345050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #390 on: July 31, 2018, 11:44:24 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9841. msg109141#msg109141 date=1532959461
Quote from: TMaekler link=topic=9841. msg109140#msg109140 date=1532957911
Variable size for stuff like:
- Crew Quarters
- Hangar Space
- Maintenance Space
- Maintenance Storage
- Fuel Storage
etc.

Instead of having to research or having available 6 different fixes sizes, I think it would make more sense to be able to tell the program how much it should add to the ship and the overall size and material use of that module is calculated based on that size.

Larger fuel modules (for example) are more efficient in terms of cost while you may want multiple smaller modules to allow for redundancy.  Otherwise life support or fuel could be lost all at once.  The variation is to allow player choice.  BTW I think for C# the smaller life support systems are all available without research (not at home at the moment so can't check).
Why not instead have both a number for how many tanks its held in? I. E set the fuel to 1. 5 million tons in 6 tanks, with each tank taking up equal space and holding equal amounts of fuel.  Perhaps even have a field for smaller tanks, if you really want too.
That way leads to unrepresentable fractional numbers, which are best avoided.  On the other hand, specifying the number of tanks and the number of liters per tank would work nicely.  An HTK option like we have for magazines, representing compartmentalized or self-sealing tanks would work, too.

Armor and crew quarters for now just nicely round any fractional numbers. I would go on and propose to overhaul the interface for designing ships, instead of clicking items many times, add to each row a number field where you can type in a number. For launchers, beams, fire controls this would simply be the amount requested, while for fuel it could be capacity, or for engineering spaces the desired maintenance time.
 

Offline Tuna-Fish

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #391 on: July 31, 2018, 02:04:21 PM »
Larger fuel modules (for example) are more efficient in terms of cost while you may want multiple smaller modules to allow for redundancy. Otherwise life support or fuel could be lost all at once. The variation is to allow player choice. BTW I think for C# the smaller life support systems are all available without research (not at home at the moment so can't check).

The only kink in this is that due to the way the game handles 0htk components, all of the smaller-than-s1 components are both more expensive and make your ship weaker. Would it be possible to make them somehow less of a liability to keep the tradeoff between expensive but more durable vs cheaper but more fragile?

Giving them all 1 htk would probably make it too easy to flood your dac with expendable stuff. Would some kind of fractional htk system work?
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #392 on: July 31, 2018, 05:14:26 PM »
Just a minor suggestion, "Conventional Steel" should probably be called Rolled Homogeneous Armour (RHA) as that is more specific and technical and perhaps the middle conventional armour tech can be Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) with the top tech being Composite Armour before we get to duranium (though those two are more debatable and there's probably not too much of a problem with "composite" and "advanced composite").
 

Offline SpikeTheHobbitMage

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 670
  • Thanked: 159 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #393 on: July 31, 2018, 11:59:11 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9841. msg109141#msg109141 date=1532959461
Quote from: TMaekler link=topic=9841. msg109140#msg109140 date=1532957911
Variable size for stuff like:
- Crew Quarters
- Hangar Space
- Maintenance Space
- Maintenance Storage
- Fuel Storage
etc.

Instead of having to research or having available 6 different fixes sizes, I think it would make more sense to be able to tell the program how much it should add to the ship and the overall size and material use of that module is calculated based on that size.

Larger fuel modules (for example) are more efficient in terms of cost while you may want multiple smaller modules to allow for redundancy.  Otherwise life support or fuel could be lost all at once.  The variation is to allow player choice.  BTW I think for C# the smaller life support systems are all available without research (not at home at the moment so can't check).
Why not instead have both a number for how many tanks its held in? I. E set the fuel to 1. 5 million tons in 6 tanks, with each tank taking up equal space and holding equal amounts of fuel.  Perhaps even have a field for smaller tanks, if you really want too.
That way leads to unrepresentable fractional numbers, which are best avoided.  On the other hand, specifying the number of tanks and the number of liters per tank would work nicely.  An HTK option like we have for magazines, representing compartmentalized or self-sealing tanks would work, too.

Armor and crew quarters for now just nicely round any fractional numbers. I would go on and propose to overhaul the interface for designing ships, instead of clicking items many times, add to each row a number field where you can type in a number. For launchers, beams, fire controls this would simply be the amount requested, while for fuel it could be capacity, or for engineering spaces the desired maintenance time.
Desired maintenance time isn't the only consideration.  For example, some of my survey/recon ships have short rated maintenance times because they don't have enough MSP to repair their sensors, but the AFR is low enough they usually get back for overhaul before they actually experience a failure.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #394 on: August 01, 2018, 12:29:47 PM »
Desired maintenance time isn't the only consideration.  For example, some of my survey/recon ships have short rated maintenance times because they don't have enough MSP to repair their sensors, but the AFR is low enough they usually get back for overhaul before they actually experience a failure.
It is not about if maintenance times catches all aspects, it is about what parameter is the most convenient to control. 12 months maintenance time tells you something, 5 engineering spaces may be anything or nothing. Similar to how you want to control the number of armor layers rather than the total amount of armor.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #395 on: August 01, 2018, 12:57:26 PM »
Just a minor suggestion, "Conventional Steel" should probably be called Rolled Homogeneous Armour (RHA) as that is more specific and technical and perhaps the middle conventional armour tech can be Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) with the top tech being Composite Armour before we get to duranium (though those two are more debatable and there's probably not too much of a problem with "composite" and "advanced composite").

A counterpoint:

I am very strongly in favour of all non-TNE tech retaining (or gaining) the word "conventional" in its name.  "Conventional Rolled Homogeneous Armour" might be too long.  I would suggest Conventional Homogeneous, or Conventional Reactive, or Conventional Ferro-Ceramic.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 12:10:03 PM by Father Tim »
 

Offline Shuul

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #396 on: August 01, 2018, 05:54:33 PM »
Hi Steve, I have a suggestion, but im not sure if it was proposed already some time ago.
It always looked a bit strange for me that meeting aliens all we can do is diplomacy, so I think that it would be great that, lets say, after meeting aliens "Tau" we will get some custom research project.
Possible projects:
Tau ship design - shows up after first ship seen and helps identify their ships better, or even prohibits full identification until researched
Tau physiology - appears after first tau are either captured/killed in ground combat or when trading agreement is reached. Can give some modifier for fighting them or just provide some insights for diplomacy.
Tau Culture - appears after good relations are established, increases diplomacy rating.
Tau technology - appears after first tau ship salvaged - gives more info on ships and maybe some bonuses to other staff.

etc. many things can be done here.

I believe this will enrich interaction methods with NPR.
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #397 on: August 01, 2018, 06:07:44 PM »
How about a mobile refit module that can repair ships?
x1 Mobile Refit Module = 1,000 Tons Maximum
They also need a cargo hold (can be itself or another ship in the taskgroup) to hold the minerals for the refit/repair.  They can also repair ship wrecks. 
That brings me to my second suggestion, how about tugging wrecks to a shipyard or mobile refit ship to repair them? You'd have to salvage atleast one ship of the class to repair a wreck.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #398 on: August 03, 2018, 05:42:22 AM »
For roleplay reasons would it be nice if the SpaceMaster could add and remove special events to certain colonies. Events which could decrease or increase several values of the planet (like unrest, dust, radioactive fallout, composition of atmosphere).
 

Offline snapto

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Petty Officer
  • *****
  • s
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze 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 Suggestions
« Reply #399 on: August 03, 2018, 01:03:08 PM »
It would be great to have an indication of the lift capacity needed to move each installation - especially with the new and existing installations that we will now be able to move. It looks like the lift capacity for the new land units are provided but I didn't see anything similar for installations. Maybe in the mineral requirements for each installation on the industry tab?  Cheers.
 

Offline SimonS3

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 6
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions Tractor Beams
« Reply #400 on: August 03, 2018, 02:03:39 PM »
Not sure if anyone has discussed this before ( actually I am sure they have but I can't find it ;) ) but I rely very heavily on tugs in my universe to move around  Mining, Defense, and Terra-forming platforms, what would be great is if you could link up multiple tugs to a larger platform and use their combined thrust to move larger units faster ( moving my Terra-forming Orbital habitats  takes forever :) )

cheers 
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #401 on: August 06, 2018, 12:51:52 PM »
How about building Ring Worlds like in Halo?
 

Offline Frank Jager

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 36
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #402 on: August 06, 2018, 01:23:27 PM »
As for crew requirements.

Further down the line could we have computer effeciency ylyechs which reduce the amount of crew needed, while making the ship exorbitantly expensive.

We could then make things like the Honorverses Recon Drones and Missile Pods, which don't have any crew at all but can be retargeted and flown like an Aurora ship.
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #403 on: August 06, 2018, 03:14:50 PM »
How about actual rebellion that happens at 100% unrest.   Each ground unit has a 20% of becoming a rebel.  The space units also will have rebellion action on it, kinda like boarding.  And the rebellion will cause slight unrest throughout your colonies.   .
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 03:16:23 PM by MasonMac »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kytuzian, Frank Jager

Offline Peroox

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • P
  • Posts: 18
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #404 on: August 06, 2018, 04:06:10 PM »
Quote from: Frank Jager link=topic=9841. msg109255#msg109255 date=1533579807
As for crew requirements.

Further down the line could we have computer effeciency ylyechs which reduce the amount of crew needed, while making the ship exorbitantly expensive.

We could then make things like the Honorverses Recon Drones and Missile Pods, which don't have any crew at all but can be retargeted and flown like an Aurora ship.

For now you can only create a missile drone.  It will be fine to create a system of no crew ship that can be hacked by enemy if discovered.  Then stealth technology will be even more important, because that drone can be very small, and with new sensor system that have much more sense.  And also more electronic warfare :)

P. S For roleplay AGI civilisation it could be technology that make ship less depends on robots/cyborgs.