Author Topic: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion  (Read 31596 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik Luken

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Thanked: 78 times
    • View Profile
    • Arkayn Game Design
Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« on: December 30, 2015, 03:49:19 PM »
Have at.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2015, 09:04:26 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1707
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
    • View Profile
Re: Changelog 7.2 Discussion
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2015, 04:53:21 PM »
I love the possibilities this shipping line transfer allows, sure this wasnt intended, but of course we're going to use this as a expedient method of thinning out the herd as it were if civilians start being a problem.
1) notice your game is slow
2) blame the civilians because why not?
3) Transfer a whole line to a new empire
4) set them as enemy
5) target practice
6) (optional) notice it didn't really help so add a new shipping line and subsidise it heavily
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, mahks

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 801
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Changelog 7.2 Discussion
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2015, 06:45:28 PM »
Oh yes, finally I wouldn't need to be in constant designer mode anymore. Extinguished around 20 of those lines+all their designs just today.
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 700
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Changelog 7.2 Discussion
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2015, 06:57:10 PM »
You can thank me for it:

Steve, I thought it's impossible to move shipping lines from one country to another? How are you going to model that in the Commonwealth unification?
I was going to use a database hack :) but I probably should build in the transfer code and make it available to everyone.

 ;D ;D ;D
 

Offline Ostia

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 98
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2015, 10:03:00 AM »
Quote
Disabling New Civilian Ships

I've noticed there are players who are not huge fans of civilian shipping  :)

Therefore in 7.2 I have included an option in the game window to disable the creation of new ships by shipping lines.

Personally I would prefer some more fine tuning. I usually only mind Fuel Harvester (stay off my precious gas giants) and CMCs (hands off my precious resources). So some "Ban by category" would be preferable or me.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1707
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2015, 01:06:46 PM »
It's nice having a check that disables new ships, when you reach a good level of shipping you can effectively pause their growth.
I'm far more interested in the changes to orbital habitats and the new 'armour'.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 228
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2015, 01:29:06 PM »
Personally I would prefer some more fine tuning. I usually only mind Fuel Harvester (stay off my precious gas giants) and CMCs (hands off my precious resources). So some "Ban by category" would be preferable or me.

I have to absolutely agree with this, Steve. Personally it's the fuel harvesters that make me completely mad. At least with CMC I can buy the output and send it home with mass drivers. Though it's a strain on the economy, so be it, at least it's automated. But fuel harvesters not only require me to buy, but to micromanage the entire thing. I hate that. I have to remember to go and get the fuel and bring it back to my colonies. Horrible, really.

Realistically a political power could just sat the civvies: hey there, if you build fuel harvesters around MY gas giants, I'll blow them up.

If possible I would really endorse a granular solution like the one Ostia proposed :)
 

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 801
  • Thanked: 23 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2015, 09:31:31 PM »
Quote
Disabling New Civilian Ships

I've noticed there are players who are not huge fans of civilian shipping  :)

Therefore in 7.2 I have included an option in the game window to disable the creation of new ships by shipping lines.
That is even better. I would be a fan, but my cpu is not! xd , so having it optional is very useful. Actually, with that at hand, I will likely start to play like Marc described: Let them be and just stop their growth at some point.(probably weed out the harvesters though still) The only reason to stop them early and entirely so far was because that was the only point where deleting ships had still been manageable.

Then the amazing habitat changes... . I think Aurora got radiation damage, because it is suddenly mutating so fast, though beneficial.
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2015, 10:44:32 PM »
Few things


In v7.2 Maintenance Storage Bays are no longer a military system.


THANK YOU. Finally, I can build reasonably sized civilian support to add to the tanker role (or add MSP to fleet tankers)

Could we perhaps beg for a civilian ammo transport method, and perhaps hangar bay?

Missiles can only be unloaded to a planet with a maintenance facility or maintenance module in orbit.
Have them unload at maintenance facility speeds for "reloading" them, as say the missiles were dismantled for shipping and need to be pieced back together, and it takes 1.2 hours for a size 1 missile, per maintenance facility on the planet. Perhaps also have them loaded at this rate too. So as it works out quite nicely, a planet with 1 maintenance bay can load or unload 100MSP worth of ammo to civilian ship per 5 day increment.
A planet with a FAC tender stationed there (5 maintenance modules) is 500MSP per increment.
Might seem rather slow. But your homeworld if you like running 20kt warships will fill up a transport at 10kMSP per increment, which you can then send your cheap expendable civilian ships, to sit at forward bases for a little while to unload. Rather than having a fuel hungry, naval shipyard demanding ammo collier.

For the civilian hangar bays.
Using the above missile example 100MSP in a 5 day = 5HS, or 250tons of "civilian hangar goods" per 5 day inc.
So for the civilian hangars, they also load and unload at what I'm now going to call "maintenance standard rate". A planet with a FAC tender at it can remove and assemble, 2.5 fighters per 5day inc. OR if you prefer to ship your fuel hungry FACs to forward bases in this manner, you could pull 1.25 out of the freighter per 5day and assemble it.

My theory crafting for this is that just like in history, for shipping, aircraft had many things dismantled such as wings, were shoved into boxes, and then put back together when they got to their destinations. Same thing in aurora, all the hangy bits, and perhaps box launchers and modular components were taken off to pack for shipping... and it takes a couple weeks for a team of engineers to put it all back together. Also while I see no reason why you couldn't even do this with ships up to 5kt in size. Beyond that, the fuelcost/time saving becomes worthless, as you were probably better off sending the ship itself

This is mainly something that I think about because I really don't like having to take combat carriers off station, and send them to the home port to transport fighters to forward bases. And perhaps "hopping" from tanker to tanker with fighters is interesting gameplay for some, but it does get a tad annoying, especially with the terrible efficiency of their engines.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Few questions also.

The new civilian shipping line rules. Does this mean I can halt construction of civvy ships, and then at a later time, turn their production back on?

Also since I haven't played in a while if someone can refresh my memory. Size 1 passive sensors are "civilian" IIRC, but are size 1 actives? I forget.
 

Offline AL

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 560
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2015, 11:29:42 PM »
Size 1 (or smaller) actives will not remove the commercial tag from ship designs.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1707
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2016, 12:15:55 AM »
I give all my larger commercial ships a 'full' size 1 sensor suite, EM, thermal, and res 1, 5, 20, 80, and 500.
Unless I'm trying to save uridium or I'm in a hurry to build. Usually it's harvesters that miss out on the full package since they operate as a group anyway.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 805
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2016, 07:56:59 AM »
Missiles can only be unloaded to a planet with a maintenance facility or maintenance module in orbit.
Have them unload at maintenance facility speeds for "reloading" them, as say the missiles were dismantled for shipping and need to be pieced back together, and it takes 1.2 hours for a size 1 missile, per maintenance facility on the planet. Perhaps also have them loaded at this rate too. So as it works out quite nicely, a planet with 1 maintenance bay can load or unload 100MSP worth of ammo to civilian ship per 5 day increment.
A planet with a FAC tender stationed there (5 maintenance modules) is 500MSP per increment.
Might seem rather slow. But your homeworld if you like running 20kt warships will fill up a transport at 10kMSP per increment, which you can then send your cheap expendable civilian ships, to sit at forward bases for a little while to unload. Rather than having a fuel hungry, naval shipyard demanding ammo collier.

For the civilian hangar bays.
Using the above missile example 100MSP in a 5 day = 5HS, or 250tons of "civilian hangar goods" per 5 day inc.
So for the civilian hangars, they also load and unload at what I'm now going to call "maintenance standard rate". A planet with a FAC tender at it can remove and assemble, 2.5 fighters per 5day inc. OR if you prefer to ship your fuel hungry FACs to forward bases in this manner, you could pull 1.25 out of the freighter per 5day and assemble it.

My theory crafting for this is that just like in history, for shipping, aircraft had many things dismantled such as wings, were shoved into boxes, and then put back together when they got to their destinations. Same thing in aurora, all the hangy bits, and perhaps box launchers and modular components were taken off to pack for shipping... and it takes a couple weeks for a team of engineers to put it all back together. Also while I see no reason why you couldn't even do this with ships up to 5kt in size. Beyond that, the fuelcost/time saving becomes worthless, as you were probably better off sending the ship itself

This is mainly something that I think about because I really don't like having to take combat carriers off station, and send them to the home port to transport fighters to forward bases. And perhaps "hopping" from tanker to tanker with fighters is interesting gameplay for some, but it does get a tad annoying, especially with the terrible efficiency of their engines.

That all sounds awfully complex with several new separated game mechanics?

Why not instead aim for the common denominator and try to keep the concept as simple as possible?

The common property of all this is that they are "disassembled" into neat packages for transportation, and then assembled on site.

But, Hey don't we already have something like that, but for PDCs only?

So, the conceptually best way to do this (IMO) would be to expand/improve the PDC option to also include  fighters and stacks of missiles?!

Construction option "Prefab PDC" could be changed to a more general "Disassemble" command which allows you to take any number of PDCs, fighters or missiles, and "pack" it into one or more pre-set "crates" which is the same standard size as a PDC Component, but the game remembers the contents. The Industrial cost of this derived the same as the PDC assembly cost ( and no minerals here either ), but you now have to build the PDCs first.

This means you can take for example a completed PDC Hangar loaded with fighters which in turn are loaded with missiles, Select the PDC in a single click, add a few spare reloads worth of missiles and have it all neatly disassembled and packed down into a creates for shipping ( via the  Industry->Stockpiles menu ). Once on site you give a single order to disassemble the crates and you have a operational PDC Hangar stocked with fighters and missiles!
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6468
  • Thanked: 810 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2016, 08:28:50 AM »
The new civilian shipping line rules. Does this mean I can halt construction of civvy ships, and then at a later time, turn their production back on?

Yes, that's correct.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1707
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2016, 09:02:47 AM »
Why not just use the preexisting launcher reload system with some modifiers based on tech like reload level, feed system efficiency, and cargo handling multiplier.
Lets assume a missile load speed 10 times slower than launcher reload rate.
We'll look at a tier 2 destroyer from my last game.
Code: [Select]
Portland class Destroyer 9000 tons     256 Crew     1097.6 BP      TCS 180  TH 500  EM 0
2777 km/s     Armour 5-38     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control 2     PPV 42
Annual Failure Rate: 27%    IFR: 0.4%    Maintenance Capacity 191 MSP
Magazine 342   Spare Berths 7   

10HS 100 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (5)    Power 100    Fuel Use 141.5%    Armour 0    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 360,000 Litres    Range 5.1 billion km   (21 days at full power)

Size 6 Missile Launcher (R2) (7)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 90
Missile Fire Control 10/5 FC61-R120 (1)     Range 61.6m km    Resolution 120
Maverick Mk III (57)  Speed: 13,800 km/s   End: 84.2m    Range: 69.7m km   WH: 7    Size: 6    TH: 46 / 27 / 13

Active Search Sensor 10 /5 MR65-R120 (1)     GPS 14400     Range 65.7m km     Resolution 120

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
Default reload rate is 90 for a size 6 missile, we'll assume it will take 900 seconds to load a single size 6 into the magazine, lets make this per cargo handling system on the ammunition ship, improved can load 2 in this time, advanced 4 in this time. Note that this is reload rate of 1, lets assume that increased launcher reload rate doesn't help magazine load speed, but magazine feed efficiency should however.
Magazine is about 1000 tons and holds 342 in total, that's 57 missiles at 900 seconds each so default reload time is 14.25 hours. Cargo handling systems weigh in at 100 tons a piece, it's not unreasonable to assume that an ammunition ship serving this 9000 ton ship will be of similar size, lets say we put 4 cargo handling system which is a mere 4% of the ship.
Load rate then is 3.56 hours. Which is significant, but compares to loading speed of other cargo, it will certainly prevent immediate reloads of a fleet during a battle, except in the case of box launchers which obviously can reload very fast by comparison.  That time will be halved once improved handling is added, and of course if you have multiple ammo ships in the fleet you get improved transfer speed.
Next there magazine feed efficiency, what about each level reducing the speed penalty compared to normal launcher speed, research reducing load rate from 10 times down by 1 per level, the final feed efficiency tech drops it down to merely double.
So by top tech tier loading a size 6 missile would take only 180 seconds, you can load 4 per advanced cargo handling system, the hypothetical ammo tender we had above would reload the destroyer in only 10.6 minutes.
Without going to that extreme lets just assume we increase cargo handling systems to 6, and have researched improved cargo handling (10,000 points) and feed efficiency 80 and 85% (6000 points total).
Load time per size 6 missile becomes 720 seconds, thats 11 hours, divided by 12 for the 6 improved handling systems makes reloading the ship only take 57 minutes.
How does this sound?

Edit: I like the maintenance changes, my last game I placed a single maintenance colony in Barnards star which required either frequent mineral shipments, or mines on 5 movies in the system and even still needed shipping in uridium and neutronium.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 10:02:14 AM by MarcAFK »
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 434
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2016, 09:56:58 AM »
Hmm so v7 comes out with lots of nice shiny additions and so I start a new campaign and spent the regulation amount of hours getting it all setup correctly to begin. Then some bugs are discovered and while fixing them Steve puts in some new shinies, since there were serious bugs I hold off doing anything and wait for v7.1 with the new DB. v7.1 comes out and hot on it's heels v7.2 pops up promising so many wonderful shinies I simply have to have them, and it also means waiting due to a db change. When will this torture end?  ;D
 

 

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