Author Topic: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion  (Read 33610 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JOKER

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #315 on: July 28, 2016, 11:45:15 PM »
That would be a good idea. I find that very annoying as well and a detriment to large fleet engagements as time goes on.

Would you mind sharing that excel sheet with us, I'm sure plenty of people would use it.

Just use cost percent of each component to calculate how many factories should you assign for them, so that they will finish on the same day.

For example, your ship have 30% engine, 20% weapon, 10% sensor, other 40% are small components and armor that can't or not worth to build in factory. So I use 0.3/(0.3+0.2+0.1)=50% factory to build engine, 0.2/(0.3+0.2+0.1)=33% factory for weapon, 17% for sensor. If you simply assign all factory to engine than turn to other components, when they finish producting one kind of component, they stopped working until next time increment. It could save about 20 days for every batch.

But I'm not sure this 20 days worth it or not.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 83 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #316 on: January 23, 2017, 02:05:32 PM »
Thought I would check. Will Auto-fire and/or Auto-assignment rank limits/priorities be fixed?
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #317 on: January 23, 2017, 02:32:52 PM »
Thought I would check. Will Auto-fire and/or Auto-assignment rank limits/priorities be fixed?
I believe Steve said that auto-fire will be replaced by something at some point.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6541
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #318 on: January 23, 2017, 03:38:15 PM »
Thought I would check. Will Auto-fire and/or Auto-assignment rank limits/priorities be fixed?

I'll be rewriting the auto-assignment and auto-fire from scratch.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #319 on: May 22, 2017, 08:56:44 PM »
While it's nice to get ships to use a lot more commanders in general, task force structure, as it has been in VB6 aurora, was at least sorta useful for staffing commanders there and emulating some sort of regional military structure.
Is it within consideration to implement some kind of regional position for commanders that at least superficially emulates task force commanders? Less for usefulness, more for the feeling that having 8 levels of military promotions somewhat means something, in one way or another.
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6541
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #320 on: May 27, 2017, 04:10:54 AM »
While it's nice to get ships to use a lot more commanders in general, task force structure, as it has been in VB6 aurora, was at least sorta useful for staffing commanders there and emulating some sort of regional military structure.
Is it within consideration to implement some kind of regional position for commanders that at least superficially emulates task force commanders? Less for usefulness, more for the feeling that having 8 levels of military promotions somewhat means something, in one way or another.

C# Aurora has a hierarchy of 'admin commands' to which you can assign higher-ranked commanders.
 
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, iceball3

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #321 on: May 31, 2017, 07:05:43 PM »
Hey, @Steve Walmsley , a thought just came across my head: You know how you mentioned tidal locking being a factor in colony costs, right?
How does this apply to moons and the like, who are listed as tidally locked to their respective planet, but are not tidally locked to the sun in a manner that the restriction elaborates on?
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6541
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #322 on: June 01, 2017, 03:42:57 PM »
Hey, @Steve Walmsley , a thought just came across my head: You know how you mentioned tidal locking being a factor in colony costs, right?
How does this apply to moons and the like, who are listed as tidally locked to their respective planet, but are not tidally locked to the sun in a manner that the restriction elaborates on?

Moons aren't affected by tidal lock when calculating colony costs - only planets
 
The following users thanked this post: iceball3

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #323 on: June 27, 2017, 10:27:01 PM »
Another question, sorry if I asked this before:
Will hydrosphere extent limit the maximum population possible if it is frozen solid?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6541
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #324 on: July 02, 2017, 04:02:52 AM »
Another question, sorry if I asked this before:
Will hydrosphere extent limit the maximum population possible if it is frozen solid?

As things currently stand, yes.

It probably makes sense for a frozen hydrosphere to have less of an impact on total population, although the population would still be limited by the other factors such as temperature (limited in terms of requiring infrastructure) so it may not make much practical difference.
 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 883
  • Thanked: 28 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #325 on: July 07, 2017, 03:30:53 PM »
Another question, sorry if I asked this before:
Will hydrosphere extent limit the maximum population possible if it is frozen solid?
Not having it do so seems like an invitation for hilarious mishaps when you pack Hoth full of people, melt it, and then realize that it has 99.9% hydrosphere.  Pack ice doesn't seem like a particularly good place to live, either, so keeping hydrosphere as a constant seems not entirely unrealistic.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 397
  • Thanked: 49 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #326 on: July 07, 2017, 05:04:44 PM »
Can we have a tech (possibly with corresponding installations) to reduce the negative affect that having too large a hydrosphere has on population limits; to simulate underwater, floating, or stilt-supported cities?
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline superstrijder15

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #327 on: July 08, 2017, 04:48:19 AM »
Quote from: Barkhorn link=topic=8152. msg103462#msg103462 date=1499465084
Can we have a tech (possibly with corresponding installations) to reduce the negative affect that having too large a hydrosphere has on population limits; to simulate underwater, floating, or stilt-supported cities?
Possibly you could say you need to use infrastructure 'X per million if over Y million pop' for terraformed planets with 0 cost otherwise but a large hydrosphere.
 
The following users thanked this post: iceball3

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #328 on: November 14, 2017, 02:25:36 PM »
Possibly you could say you need to use infrastructure 'X per million if over Y million pop' for terraformed planets with 0 cost otherwise but a large hydrosphere.
Sounds good in my opinion. Infrastructure is up to and including domes and farms suited to keep people alive in the vacuum of a barren planet, after all. Ice with atmosphere would be suitably less problematic. Water a little difficult, but...
 

 

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