Author Topic: Change for v6.00  (Read 26078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2012, 09:46:28 AM »
Updated Crew Requirements

The following is a list of changes to crew requirements for each module. I'll go through the whole thread and answer the questions when I get a little bit more time.

Active Sensors, Beam/Missile Fire Control, EM/Thermal Sensors, Cloak, Jump Drive, Reactor: was Hull Spaces x5, now Hull Spaces x2.
Asteroid Mining Module: was 100, now 50
Cargo Handling Systems: still 10 each
Compact ECM/ECCM: was 10 now 3.
Damage Control: was 25, now 10
ECM/ECCM: was 20, now 6
Engineering: was 10, now 5
Grav/Geo Sensors: was 25, now 10
Hangar Deck: was 25, now 15
Jump Gate Construction module: now 20% of previous. 100 for base module.
Laser, Meson, Microwave, Particle Beam, Plasma Carronade, Railgun: was Hull Spaces x10. Now Hull Spaces x5.
Magazine: was HSx1.5, now HSx0.5, although min 1.
Maintenance Module: was 125, now 50.
Missile Launcher: was Hull Spaces x Size Modifier x10. Now Hull Spaces x Size Modifier x5
Salvage Module: was 200, now 80.
Shields: was 3 per unit, now 1
Small Craft ECM/ECCM, was 4, now 1
Terraforming Module: Was 200, now 100.
Tractor Beam: was 20, now 10

Jump Drive Changes

All jump drive tech efficiencies have increased by 1, so the tech progression now starts at 4. The research costs are effectively halved as the RP cost for efficiency 5 is now the same as it used to be for 4, etc..

Jump Drive Cost was (JumpDriveHS ^ 2) / 4
Jump Drive Cost now (JumpDriveHS ^ 1.8) / 4

This is a bigger change than it looks. For example, a 10,000 ton efficiency 5 jump drive is now 191 BP instead of 400 BP. A 15,000 ton efficiency 5 jump drive is now 397 BP instead of 900 BP.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 09:52:23 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v6.00
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2012, 09:52:05 AM »
Changes to Engine Design and Fuel Consumption

Note: This post was updated on 23rd Sept 2012 with a new fuel consumption formula

Engine Design

I've completely changed engine design for v5.70. This shares a lot in common with the Newtonian Aurora engine design, although without the real world physics. Different engine platforms no longer exist, so you will no longer research "FAC" and "fighter" engine types. Engines are classed as "Commercial" for maintenance purposes unless they trigger a "Military" flag - more on that later. The elements of engine design are now as follows:

Engine Technology: This is exactly as before. The engine technology names are the same and the amount of engine power per HS of engine for each type is the same.

Fuel Consumption: This is similar in concept to the old Fuel Efficiency, although it is now modified by other factors in engine design. Fuel Consumption is far more important than in the past. The initial consumption rate starts at one litre per Engine Power Hour (which is one point of engine power for one hour). So an engine with 25 power using the base fuel consumption technology would use 25 litres of fuel per hour. Additional technology levels will lower the fuel consumption rate (0.9 litres per EPH, 0.8 litres per EPH, etc.). On the engine design summary an engine is rated in the total number of litres of fuel per hour it consumes and also the amount per Engine Power Hour. The total amount is derived from Engine Power x Fuel Consumption per EPH. So an Engine with 15 power and a Fuel Consumption per EPH of 0.5 would consume 7.5 litres of fuel per hour.

Engine Size: You can now select the size of engine from 1 HS to 50 HS. Larger engines are more fuel efficient so fuel consumption is reduced by 1% for every HS of engine. For example, a 10 HS engine reduces fuel consumption by 10% and a 25 HS engine reduces it by 25%. There is no longer any restriction on the number of engines so you can have twin engined fighters if you wish.

Thermal Reduction: As before, this reduces the thermal signature of engines, which, without thermal reduction, is equal to their power.

Power / Fuel Consumption Modifiers: There are two new tech lines to research, called Max Engine Power Modifier and Min Engine Power Modifier. These establish the range within which you can change engine power from that provided by the base engine technology. Increasing power increases fuel consumption per EPH and decreasing power can provide significant savings in fuel consumption. Power can be increased by up to 300% of normal and decreased to 10% of normal if you have the prerequisite techs. The dropdown on the design window will have options from the minimum possible to the maximum possible in 0.05 increments. So 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55 ...... 1.80, 1.85, etc. Each engine power modifier percentage is accompanied by a fuel consumption modifier, based on the formula Fuel Consumption Modifier = Engine Power Modifier ^ 2.5

For example, assume you choose to increase Engine Power to 1.5. The Fuel Consumption would be 1.5 ^ 2.5 = 2.76, so for a power increase of 50%, the fuel consumption per EPH would increase by 176%. This is shown on the dropdown as "Engine Power x1.50. Fuel Consumption per EPH x2.76".

Crew Requirement: The crew requirement for engines has been significantly reduced. It is now equal to Engine HS x Power Modifier (rounded down). So an engine with 5 HS and a 25% increase in power would require a crew of 5 x 1.5 = 7.5 (rounded down to 7). The old method was simply Engine HS * 5.

Here is the design summary for an engine of 5 HS, using Magneto-plasma Drive technology and Fuel Consumption technology of 0.6 per EPH with a 25% increase in power and no thermal reduction.

Magneto-plasma Drive
Engine Power: 100     Fuel Use Per Hour: 99.57 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.996 Litres
Engine Size: 5 HS    Engine HTK: 2
Thermal Signature: 100     Exp Chance: 12
Cost: 50    Crew: 6
Materials Required: 0x Duranium  50x Gallicite
Military Engine
Development Cost for Project: 1000RP

Because of the power modifier the fuel consumption per EPH is increased by 75% and due to the size of the engine the fuel consumption per EPH is decreased by 5%. The Fuel Consumption per EPH is calculated as the base racial technology of 0.6 litres per EPH, x0.95 for engine size, x1.7469 for the 25% engine thrust modifier, which equals 0.9957. Fuel use in litres per hour is therefore 100 power x 0.9957= 99.57 litres.  

Now lets look at an engine designed with fuel consumption as a priority. This is an engine of 25 HS, using Magneto-plasma technology, with an 60% decrease in thrust and no thermal reduction.

Commercial Magneto-plasma Drive
Engine Power: 160     Fuel Use Per Hour: 7.28 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.045 Litres
Engine Size: 25 HS    Engine HTK: 12
Thermal Signature: 160     Exp Chance: 4
Cost: 32    Crew: 10
Materials Required: 0x Duranium  32x Gallicite
Commercial Engine
Development Cost for Project: 800RP

The Fuel Consumption per EPH is calculated as the base racial technology of 0.6 litres per EPH, x0.75 for engine size, x0.1012 for the -60% engine power modifier, which equals 0.045537. Fuel use in litres per hour is therefore 160 power x 0.045537= 7.2859 litres per hour. So this engine produces sixty percent more power then the previous engine yet uses only 7% of the fuel. However, it is five times larger so the base speed is much lower and you will use a little extra fuel pushing the mass of the engine itself. The result is that a ship with this engine will take longer to get there but it will use a lot less fuel on the journey. Note this is classed as a commercial engine and the one above was classed as military. Any engine that exceeds 50% base engine power or is smaller than 25 HS is classed as military for maintenance purposes.

Changes relating to Fuel

As fuel consumption is now higher than in the past, I have made a number of changes to systems related to fuel.

Gas giants have a 50% chance of Sorium compared to 20% in the past. The minimum accessibility for gas giant Sorium is 0.3.

Fuel Harvesters have been reduced in size and cost by 50%. Their crew requirement has been reduced by 80%

Three new Fuel Storage Systems have been added. They are shown below with the current 1 HS system for comparison. Fuel Storage systems no longer require any crew.

Fuel Storage (1HS): 50,000 litres, 10 BP
Fuel Storage - Large (5 HS), 250,000 litres, 30 BP
Fuel Storage - Very Large (20 HS): 1,000,000 litres, 70 BP
Fuel Storage - Ultra Large (100 HS): 5,000,000 litres, 200 BP
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 10:20:19 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2012, 01:08:59 PM »
Missile Engines

In the new version of Aurora, you will design individual missile engines rather than just allocating a set amount of space to the engine during missile design. You can allocate more than one engine of the same type to a missile design. I'll cover the update to missile design separately though as this post is purely about designing missile engines. It is worth mentioning here though that there will no longer be missiles and drones. Both will be covered by a single design process and the new engines will allow missiles with similar performance to drones.

The four elements of missile engine design are described below.

Engine Technology: Exactly as ship-based engines. For example, the Magneto-plasma Drive has a rating of 16 power per hull space, so a Magneto-plasma missile engine of 1 Missile Size Point (MSP), which is 1/20th of a hull space, would provide 16/20 = 0.8 power.

Fuel Consumption: The base fuel consumption of a missile engine is five litres per Engine Power Hour (which is one point of engine power for one hour) and can be improved through research. So a max size missile engine (5 MSP) with 4 power and a racial fuel consumption technology of 0.6 litres per engine power hour would use 12 litres per hour. This is higher than shipboard engines as missile engines are designed for single use and therefore long-term fuel efficiency is a low priority in their design. They are also solid-fuelled for easy storage, which is less fuel efficient than liquid-fuelled ship-based engines.

Engine Size: Missile engines can range in size from 0.1 MSP to 5 MSP in 0.1 MSP increments. It is hard to create very small fuel efficient engines, so smaller missile engines suffer a further penalty to fuel consumption. The formula is: Fuel Modifier = Int ((Engine Size in MSP / 5) ^ (-0.683)). There is no need to remember this formula as the % change to fuel consumption is shown for each size option in missile engine design. For example, the following sizes of missile engine have the listed fuel consumption penalties

5 MSP    x1.00
4 MSP    x1.16
3 MSP    x1.42
2 MSP    x1.87
1 MSP    x3.00
0.5 MSP  x4.82
0.3 MSP  x6.83
0.1 MSP  x14.47

Power / Efficiency Modifiers: Missile engines use the same principle as ship engines and use the same tech lines (Max Engine Power Modifier and Min Engine Power Modifier). However, the upper end of the range is doubled for missile engines. So if the Max Engine Power tech is x1.75, missile engines can use up to x3.50. The rationale is that these are designed for single use, unmanned craft and therefore have significantly different engineering requirements, such as no radiation shielding or maintenance access requirements. As with ship-based engines, increasing power has a significant effect on fuel efficiency and decreasing power can provide huge savings in fuel efficiency. As the missile modifier is double that of ships, power can be increased by up to six times normal and decreased to 10% of normal if you have the prerequisite techs. The dropdown on the missile engine design window has options from the minimum possible to the maximum possible in 0.05 increments. So 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55 ...... 1.80, 1.85, etc. Each engine power modifier percentage is accompanied by a fuel consumption modifier, based on the formula Fuel Efficiency Modifier = Engine Power Modifier ^ 2.5

For example, a 1 MSP missile engine with a x3.00 engine power modifier would have a x15.59 fuel consumption modifier for the engine power modifier and a x3.00 fuel consumption modifier (x3) for the size of the engine, which is a total fuel consumption modifier of x46.77.

A 0.5 MSP missile engine with a x5.00 engine power modifier would have a x55.90 fuel consumption modifier for the power modifier and a x4.82 fuel consumption modifier for the engine size.

Here are the three examples of 1 MSP magneto-plasma drive missile engines, using x1 power, x3 power and x6 power, with a racial base fuel consumption of 0.6 Litres per Engine Power Hour

0.8 EP Magneto-plasma Drive
Engine Power: 0.8      Fuel Use Per Hour: 7.2 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 9.006 Litres
Engine Size: 1 MSP      Cost: 0.2
Thermal Signature: 0.8
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium  0.2x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 40RP

2.4 EP Magneto-plasma Drive
Engine Power: 2.4      Fuel Use Per Hour: 336.92 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 140.385 Litres
Engine Size: 1 MSP      Cost: 0.6
Thermal Signature: 2.4
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium  0.6x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 120RP

4.8 EP Magneto-plasma Drive
Engine Power: 4.8      Fuel Use Per Hour: 3811.86 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 794.137 Litres
Engine Size: 1 MSP      Cost: 1.2
Thermal Signature: 4.8
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium  1.2x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 240RP

As you can see, you will able to create missiles with more power than you can at the moment but also missiles with far more endurance. Just not both at the same time :). Missiles with a range of several billion kilometers will be possible. The problem will become targeting the enemy rather than designing a missile with the necessary endurance.

Edited 22-Apr to remove the x2 power modifier
Edited 31-Jul to add the fuel consumption penalty for size
Edited 23-Sept to change to a new fuel consumption formula for power modifiers

Steve
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 10:33:30 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2012, 06:20:32 PM »
Missile Design

Note: Updated 23rd Sept 2012 to change the fuel consumption formula for the power modifier

Missile engines are now designed in the same way as shipboard engines and you can have multiple engines per missile. The missile engine tech progression has been removed as you use the normal engine tech progression for missiles. (see the earlier section on missile engines). Missile engines use exactly the same fuel consumption rules as normal engines. Although you can boost them twice as high, which means you may end up much higher fuel consumption per Engine Power Hour, you don't have to, which means you can create some ultra-long range missiles. The constraint on effective missile range is now going to be targeting, which reflects reality as well. Also, bringing all engine types (Ship, FAC, Fighter, Drone and Missile) into a single design process with the same fuel rules is much cleaner and much better from the perspective of internal consistency.

There are no longer missiles, drones and buoys. There are simply missiles. The flexibility in the new missile design process will allow you to cover the abilities of all three previous missile categories. The drone engine tech progression has been removed.

Missile sensors must be powered. The power requirement for any sensor is equal to its 20% of the sensor strength. So one missile size point (MSP = 1/20th of a HS) allocated to an EM Sensor using a base EM sensor strength of 8 would result in an EM sensor strength of 0.4 (8/20). This would require a reactor with a power output of 0.08 (0.4/5). The reactor space is allocated automatically but displayed as if it was added by the player. Ship-based sensors do not require reactors as their needs can be met from the general power generation of the ship. On a per HS basis, passive sensors are much less powerful than active sensors at the same tech level, which means missiles will require less reactor space per MSP of passive sensors compared to active sensors.

There is no longer a separate 'buoy' category but you can create the same effect by designing a missile with sensors and no engine. The necessary reactor space will be added automatically. Missile reactors have unlimited endurance so there will no longer be a need to replace buoys every few years. While unlimited endurance is unrealistic, modern naval reactors have a service life measured in decades so this is a compromise between realism and a desire to reduce micromanagement. I may add some form of failure during very long term deployment - a failing IFF system on a mine could be entertaining - but I haven't decided yet.

You can create a single stage missile with both an engine and a reactor, which means you can create a self-deploying 'buoy' without the need for a two stage missile, although there are situations in which you might still use a two-stage missile anyway.

Costing has been updated for missile designs. The cost of the individual elements is now as follows:

a) The cost of the missile engine is equal to half that of a ship engine of the same power. This is because the missile engine is designed for short term use only.
b) Reactors and sensors are designed for long term use so they have the same cost as a ship-based system of equal power.
c) The warhead cost remains one quarter of the warhead strength
d) Agility cost is now 2% of the Agility Rating. Agility Rating is equal to the racial Missile Agility multiplied by the number of MSP allocated to Agility. So if your racial Missile Agility was 32 and you allocated 0.5 MSP, the Agility Rating would be 16 and the cost would be 16/50 = 0.32 BP.
e) Missile Armour costs one quarter of the amount of armour and Missile ECM is 5% of the ECM strength. These are both unchanged.

Missiles that have sensors will now remain on the map forever, with two exceptions:

a) If a missile has geo sensors and no other type of sensor, it will self-destruct when the geosurvey of its target planet is completed.
b) If a missile has a warhead, it will self-destruct when its fuel runs out.

These changes will allow much more creativity in missile design and will also make missiles potentially even more effective, although that includes AMMs too. However, the changes will push missile costs up a little as well and logistics have always been the primary disadvantage of missiles. The changes will also allow for more effective recon and geosurvey drones.

Here are a couple of screenshots from the updated missile design window.




« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 10:43:47 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2012, 06:22:51 PM »
All sensors and fire controls now require 100% Uridium, instead of 75% Uridium and 25% Duranium

Engines require 100% Gallicite instead of 75% Gallicite and 25% Duranium

Reactors require 100% Boronide instead of 75% Boronide and 25% Duranium
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2012, 12:12:28 PM »
You can build low tech armour and infantry once again in v5.70.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2012, 03:14:05 PM »
I've added a new Warhammer 40k commander name theme for v5.70 and two new ship naming themes, one for WH40K Empire and one for WH40K Chaos.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2012, 04:13:36 AM »
A couple more minor changes:

Unrest due to overcrowding only starts if the required infrastructure is equal to the actual infrastructure * 1.05. In other words, unrest due to overcrowding won't begin until the population is 5% greater than the support provided by the available infrastruture. This should prevent meaningless events due to the pop moving back and forth over the currently allowable limit.

The following events no longer generate an interrupt:
Officer Promoted
New Officer
Officer Health
Unrest Increasing
Unrest Decreasing
Promising New Officer
Exceptional New Officer
Outstanding New Officer
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 07:27:50 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2012, 03:59:56 PM »
Effects of Crew Morale

In the previous post about Crew Morale (see link below), I explained how low morale could happen. This post covers the effects of morale below 100%.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4835.msg49116.html#msg49116

Fleet Training
Fleet Training Points are always modified by Crew Morale when any action involving fleet training takes place. For example, a ship with a 60% fleet training rating and 80% crew morale would act as if it has a 48% fleet training rating (60% x 80%). Fleet training affects how quickly ships will respond to new movement and firing orders when hostile ships are present.

Crew Grade
Any action that uses crew grade as a modifier will also be affected by low morale. This includes weapon accuracy, maintenance failures and transit delays. The current crew grade modifier is determined by the following formula:

Crew Grade Modifier = 1 + (Round Down ( Square Root ( Ship Grade Points) - 10) / 100)

So for 100 grade points the crew grade modifier = 1.00. For 500 grade points, the crew grade modifier = 1.1236.

This final modifier is multiplied by the crew morale. So with 80% morale and 500 grade points the final modifier would be 0.8 x 1.1236 = 0.8989

This is applied as a straightforward modifier to weapons fire. For maintenance failures the chance of failure is multiplied by (2 - Crew Grade Modifier), which means a modifier greater than 1 results in less failures than would normally be expected. For modifier less than 1, there will be more maintenance failures than normal. For transit delays, the length of the delay is multiplied by (2 - Crew Grade Modifier).

Surveying
The rate at which a ship generates geological or gravitational survey points is modified by morale

As most of the above effects are combat or maintenance-related, with the exceptions of surveying and transit delay, commercial shipping is unlikely to suffer much of a penalty from crew morale. Therefore, to qualify for commercial status, a class design must include crew quarters for at least a three month deployment duration.

Steve
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 01:03:24 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2012, 02:31:12 PM »
Shipping Lines Class Designs

Shipping Lines will now design their own ships, rather than using player designs. Those designs can be viewed in the Class window but you can't unlock them. You can obsolete them if you don't wish to view them as this won't affect the shipping lines.

Each shipping line will design ships independently and will design their own engines as well. The engines won't appear as tech you can use for your own ships. Otherwise the list of engine components would get cluttered. They will take advantage of new engine tech and other systems as you develop them.

When a new ship is built, the shipping line will retire the oldest ship of the same general type (with a minimum of 10 years older) that is not currently carrying cargo. So its possible a civilian ship will last longer than 10 years, due to always being active when the shipping line is looking for a ship to scrap. As a ship will not have cargo more than 50% of the time, its luck will probably run out at some point.

All civilian ships will be scrapped when they reach 15 years old, regardless of whether a new ship has been built.

With these changes, a shipping line is generally going to have a relatively modern fleet, with the oldest ships ranging from 10-15 years.

Steve
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 06:12:15 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2012, 07:44:30 AM »
Survivors and POWs

Due to the new crew rules, tracking survivors is more important than before so I have added some extra detail, When you rescue survivors from your own ships or those of other races, they remain within their crew groups while on board the rescue ship. The ship window shows a list of the crews rescued (using ship name / race name) and how many in each crew. Those from alien ships are shown as POWs. In the past, alien POWs were effectively ignored once interrogated but now they take up life support, their presence is tracked. If you decide that you don't want aliens taking up your precious life support (or your own crews that lost their ships), there is an "Eject Into Space" button. Only RP considerations prevent its use :)

The other option for POWs is to unload them at one of your colonies. The total POWs for each alien race will be shown for each of your populations. If you retake an alien population that has POWs of your race, they are added back into your crew pool. You can also accidently kill your own crewmen if they are held prisoner on a world that you bombard.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2012, 12:08:45 PM »
Correct Allocation of Export Tax

I'm playing a test campaign at the moment for v5.70 and I've realised that export taxes are not being correctly assigned. When a civilian freighter transports trade goods, the tax revenue for the government is equally split into two parts - the export tax and the shipping tax. The export tax should go to the parent government of the population from where the trade goods are picked up while the shipping tax goes to the parent government of the shipping company. Although these are usually the same government, it will be different if the goods are being picked up from a foreign power.

In the current version, both these taxes were being incorrectly assigned to the parent government of the shipping company. This has been fixed for v5.70.

This means that if you have goods available for export and a foreign shipping line picks them up, you will still receive export taxes but not shipping taxes.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2012, 02:48:01 PM »
Civilian Fuel Harvesters

Civilian Shipping Lines will build fuel harvesters in v5.70. These harvesters will (slowly) make their way to gas giants with Sorium and start harvesting. Unlike other civilian shipping, these fuel harvesters will appear as potential destinations when you select Task Groups on the F12 orders window, so you can order your fleets to refuel from them. Refuelling from civilian harvesters costs 1 wealth for each 10,000 litres of fuel.

Once a civilian fuel harvester is full, any excess fuel is sold to the private sector. This also generates tax revenue equal to 20% of the fuel price.

Naming of Civilian Classes

Now the civilian shipping lines are designing their own ships, I have changed the naming convention for civilian-designed classes, as in my current campaign they were racing through the racial class names. It also wasn't obvious what the capability of each ship was from the name. They now use a combination of the short version of the shipping line name, an optional large or small designation, a letter designation (F = Freighter, C = Colony Ship, etc.) and a number indicating the tech level of the engines (1 = nuclear thermal, 2 = nuclear pulse, etc.)

So a large freighter from the Adonai Colony Corporation that is equiped with ion engines, would be the Adonai Large F3 class. Here is a screenshot showing the names in a campaign:

« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 06:02:52 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2012, 01:49:15 AM »
Another Attempt to Fix Robot Defenders Bug

This bug has been around a long time but I think I might have fixed it (although I may have said that before :))

First I need to mention that activated robots have their own population and that population is flagged as a "ground combat only" population (GCOP). At the moment, to conquer a population you have to attack it when there are no remaining defenders. So if you destroy the last remaining robot battalion, you will defeat that enemy 'population' during the next ground combat phase. However, during the ground attack phase, if a robot 'population' attempts to attack you and has no units (and is flagged as a GCOP), that population is deleted.

Which means that if you attack first during ground combat and destroy the last robot unit, then the robots try to attack you, their GCOP will be deleted. Which in turns means that when you try to attack that population during the next ground combat turn it doesn't exist. Now, the intention in the code is that if you attack a GCOP and conquer it, you don't have that population transferred to you. It is just deleted. However, because that population was already deleted during the last ground combat phase, there is no longer a record flagging it as a GCOP. Furthermore, your population record still has a valid attack order and a population target ID and at no point does the ground combat code actually check the enemy pop really exists - it just believes the attack ID in your own population record is valid.

So you attack the non-existent pop and conquer it (because there are no enemy ground units with that pop ID). Because the record no longer exist, the program doesn't know it was a GCOP and therefore tries to transfer that non-existent pop to your Empire. It also helpfully transfers your ground units to that non-existent pop to provide occupation forces, which means the ground forces vanish into the ether - oops!

So, I have added some extra checking code, including turning off any attack orders against a robot population that gets deleted.

In the meantime, the workaround is to just defend against any robot attack rather than counterattack.

Steve
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 03:01:20 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6511
  • Thanked: 853 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change for v5.70
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2012, 02:17:16 PM »
Update to Missile Engines

I have updated the main missile engine post with new rules for increased fuel usage for small missile engines and changed the examples to reflect the changes. This post is just a brief overview as readers may not realise the main post has been edited. The relevant section is below

Engine Size: Missile engines can range in size from 0.1 MSP to 5 MSP in 0.1 MSP increments. It is hard to create very small fuel efficient engines, so smaller missile engines suffer a penalty to fuel consumption. The formula is: Fuel Modifier = Int ((Engine Size in MSP / 5) ^ (-0.683)). There is no need to remember this formula as the % change to fuel consumption is shown for each size option in missile engine design. For example, the following sizes of missile engine have the listed fuel consumption penalties

5 MSP: 0%
4 MSP +16%
3 MSP +41%
2 MSP +86%
1 MSP +200%
0.5 MSP +381%
0.3 MSP +583%
0.1 MSP +1346%

Steve
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51