Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 66565 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 228
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1035 on: September 07, 2017, 05:18:22 AM »
I want to specify that the possibility to appoint an academy commander is particularly appreciated for conventional start.

I know you don't really do conventional starts Steve, but in a conventional start getting a bad streak of luck in generating scientists is really, really limiting. So I really look forward to this feature.
 

Offline db48x

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 98
  • Thanked: 15 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1036 on: September 07, 2017, 05:48:18 AM »
The Commandant system sounds great. It's like sending Ender out to Eris to be trained by Mazer Rackham.
 

Offline Britich

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1037 on: September 07, 2017, 11:35:51 AM »
I like to setup Academies of at least level 1 on colony worlds that are over 10-25m in population cos I tent  to try to keep my colonies <1m in population.. purely role play.. so this addition will be welcome for me.
Now I can make colonies purely for military/science/administration purposes!

Love it.
 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 848
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1038 on: September 13, 2017, 07:26:39 AM »
Very excited about all of the changes.  The one thing I will point out is that while officer management is going to be much better, ships still have crews that stick with them for all time.  This is unrealistic, and somewhat annoying, as your oldest ships always will have the best crews.
Also, I'm not sure I like ships with weapons automatically needing a Rank 3 commander.  That seems too stringent, even if you've closed the FAC loophole.  Is there a way smaller warships could use Rank 2 commanders?
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1039 on: September 14, 2017, 05:08:16 AM »
Automation through scripting:

I was wondering if in C# there is a way to expand the way in which commands are given to fleets. Especially around automation of routine jobs. For example:
I have three fleets. Two contain a bunch of sorium harvesters, one over Jupiter, one over Saturn. The third fleet is one single fuel tanker.

The tanker fleet should be able to generate a move command to one of the two fleets, if the fleet has X amount of fuel harvested. It then should unload the fuel to a specified target (for example Earth) and wait there until one of the harvester fleets again is full and then generate the next unload cycle.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 812 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1040 on: September 14, 2017, 02:50:23 PM »
Automation through scripting:

I was wondering if in C# there is a way to expand the way in which commands are given to fleets. Especially around automation of routine jobs. For example:
I have three fleets. Two contain a bunch of sorium harvesters, one over Jupiter, one over Saturn. The third fleet is one single fuel tanker.

The tanker fleet should be able to generate a move command to one of the two fleets, if the fleet has X amount of fuel harvested. It then should unload the fuel to a specified target (for example Earth) and wait there until one of the harvester fleets again is full and then generate the next unload cycle.

Could probably be done through a couple of extra conditional orders.
 

Offline Silvarelion

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1041 on: September 14, 2017, 02:53:12 PM »
Could probably be done through a couple of extra conditional orders.

Or with some hand calculations and delay orders.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath.
  ~The Mistake Not, Hydrogen Sonata, Iain Banks
 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 848
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1042 on: September 15, 2017, 08:20:32 AM »
Or with some hand calculations and delay orders.
I'd rather we got scripting/extra conditionals.  That's annoying to set up (particularly if you have more than two harvester groups), planetary movement could throw it off, and it breaks completely if you add more harvesters to a fleet. 
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Silvarelion

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1043 on: September 15, 2017, 11:57:18 AM »
I'd rather we got scripting/extra conditionals.  That's annoying to set up (particularly if you have more than two harvester groups), planetary movement could throw it off, and it breaks completely if you add more harvesters to a fleet.

True enough. I always just slow my tankers down to a point where they will be approximately full when they arrive. My games rarely get to the point when I really feel love I need to automate things to reduce the hassle.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath.
  ~The Mistake Not, Hydrogen Sonata, Iain Banks
 

Offline Kelewan

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1044 on: September 17, 2017, 12:42:47 PM »
Regarding

Quote
In C# Aurora, transferring ordnance is no longer instant and ships without specialised equipment cannot exchange ordnance in space.

does this impact PDC?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 812 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1045 on: September 17, 2017, 01:16:02 PM »
Regarding

does this impact PDC?

Interesting question. As things stands you can reload a PDC using the mechanics I laid out, because you can add a collier to the PDC fleet, or reload directly if the planet has an ordnance transfer station / spaceport. The question is whether a PDC should have some extra function beyond that.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 59
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1046 on: September 17, 2017, 03:18:46 PM »
Interesting question. As things stands you can reload a PDC using the mechanics I laid out, because you can add a collier to the PDC fleet, or reload directly if the planet has an ordnance transfer station / spaceport. The question is whether a PDC should have some extra function beyond that.

Given that a PDC is on planet (along with the stockpile) it seems to me that a PDC does not need access to ordnance transfer infrastructure so long as there's a stockpile on the colony, but it also exchanges ordnance at the standard rate.

Yes, this means that a PDC with a sufficiently large magazine and some Ordnance Transfer Systems can serve as a cut rate OTStation. It does, however, have one limitation; it can't gain more MSP per hour than the standard rate from the colony. Sufficiently missile heavy fleets won't be able to make effective use of this trick, but it's great for topping off fleets or as a far forward position supplying long range surveyors with probes.


However, there's a few other things that need answering with rearming and refueling. First, there's the implication that without having researched the refueling and ordnance transfer systems it's impossible to refuel or rearm fleets once they're launched. While I get that in a standard game these techs are presumed known, in a non-TN start these techs should not be known yet. As such it would probably be alright to set a baseline transfer rate equal to 3/4th of the starting underway replenishment techs.

Second, there's the implication that refueling and rearming from a tanker or collier with the 500 ton resupply systems and linking as many of those systems with a single ship, than would be possible with a Station or Hub, as those have infinite links but only 1 link with a given ship. This is rather exploitable, and easily solved by noting ships without a resupply system can not exceed the resupply rate of the highest resupply system available.

Third, while the first level of Spaceport is immensely useful, given that it halves cargo transfer time and grants the ability to provide unlimited refueling and rearming links, at 3600 BP it's kind of expensive for shortening cargo transfer times to 1/3rd the rate without a Spaceport. It might be better to drop the ordnance transfer and refueling functions from the Spaceport and return it to a 1200 BP structure that helps with cargo transfers.

This then leads to the 4th and final point. A non-TN start should not start with a Spaceport, Ordnance Transfer Station or Refueling Station as no Earth based polity would be able to haul the 100kt+ facilities into orbit without TN support, but these facilities, much like the Sector Commands, should probably be gated behind a tech. Perhaps a Basic Naval Supply Network technology that unlocks the facilities and the first level of transfer rate improvement, as well as the Underway Refueling, Underway Rearming and the Cargo Handling technologies?
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1047 on: September 17, 2017, 03:32:39 PM »
Could probably be done through a couple of extra conditional orders.
Would be nice to have for managing larger empires  ;)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 812 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1048 on: September 17, 2017, 04:50:17 PM »
Given that a PDC is on planet (along with the stockpile) it seems to me that a PDC does not need access to ordnance transfer infrastructure so long as there's a stockpile on the colony, but it also exchanges ordnance at the standard rate.

Yes, this means that a PDC with a sufficiently large magazine and some Ordnance Transfer Systems can serve as a cut rate OTStation. It does, however, have one limitation; it can't gain more MSP per hour than the standard rate from the colony. Sufficiently missile heavy fleets won't be able to make effective use of this trick, but it's great for topping off fleets or as a far forward position supplying long range surveyors with probes.


However, there's a few other things that need answering with rearming and refueling. First, there's the implication that without having researched the refueling and ordnance transfer systems it's impossible to refuel or rearm fleets once they're launched. While I get that in a standard game these techs are presumed known, in a non-TN start these techs should not be known yet. As such it would probably be alright to set a baseline transfer rate equal to 3/4th of the starting underway replenishment techs.

Second, there's the implication that refueling and rearming from a tanker or collier with the 500 ton resupply systems and linking as many of those systems with a single ship, than would be possible with a Station or Hub, as those have infinite links but only 1 link with a given ship. This is rather exploitable, and easily solved by noting ships without a resupply system can not exceed the resupply rate of the highest resupply system available.

Third, while the first level of Spaceport is immensely useful, given that it halves cargo transfer time and grants the ability to provide unlimited refueling and rearming links, at 3600 BP it's kind of expensive for shortening cargo transfer times to 1/3rd the rate without a Spaceport. It might be better to drop the ordnance transfer and refueling functions from the Spaceport and return it to a 1200 BP structure that helps with cargo transfers.

This then leads to the 4th and final point. A non-TN start should not start with a Spaceport, Ordnance Transfer Station or Refueling Station as no Earth based polity would be able to haul the 100kt+ facilities into orbit without TN support, but these facilities, much like the Sector Commands, should probably be gated behind a tech. Perhaps a Basic Naval Supply Network technology that unlocks the facilities and the first level of transfer rate improvement, as well as the Underway Refueling, Underway Rearming and the Cargo Handling technologies?

1) Refuelling Systems and Ordnance Transfer Systems are conventional tech so you start with them in a conventional game.

2) Not sure what you mean here. Each collier or tanker has a set amount of transfer per sub-pulse and can't exceed that (even if it refuels multiple ships). Each ship also has a max transfer per sub-pulse limit (which is set to the max transfer rate of any ship trying to refuel or rearm it), so you gain no advantage in trying multiple refuels in a turn.

3) I want the spaceport to be a major facility. It combines two 1200 BP stations, plus the cargo handling. Plus I might give it some other ability before the game is completed.

4) The Spaceport, Ordnance Transfer Station and Refuelling Station are all ground-based facilities and also conventional tech so there is no problem with a non-TN start having them.

With regard to the PDC, I am seriously considering removing PDCs from the game. They create exceptions for a number of rules, confuse new players, add complexity to ground combat without necessarily adding a commensurate improvement in game play, and their maintenance-free status can be an exploit. I may replace them with some additional types of ground forces to improve defences planetary defences and keep all 'ships' in space. One of their major advantages is to allow maintenance-free bases on new colonies, but even that is no longer as great an advantage given the new maintenance system (you can build orbital bases that can provide their own maintenance facilities and just ship in supplies).
« Last Edit: September 17, 2017, 04:52:33 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 59
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1049 on: September 17, 2017, 08:29:43 PM »
1) Refuelling Systems and Ordnance Transfer Systems are conventional tech so you start with them in a conventional game.

I'm not sure you should. The Spaceport isn't in conventional starts in 7.10, and given the BP (and presumed mineral) cost of a Refueling Station and an Ordnance Transfer Station these should be gated similarly.

2) Not sure what you mean here. Each collier or tanker has a set amount of transfer per sub-pulse and can't exceed that (even if it refuels multiple ships). Each ship also has a max transfer per sub-pulse limit (which is set to the max transfer rate of any ship trying to refuel or rearm it), so you gain no advantage in trying multiple refuels in a turn.

Didn't rules use to be 'every refueling system refuels at max rate'? Because it appears I either misread or that exploit was closed. If a collier or tanker cannot exceed their highest rated transfer system... well, it means that multiple refueling/ordnance transfer systems are no longer a thing, but at least you can't stack multiple tankers or colliers, or such ships carrying multiple transfer systems, to allow much greater transfer rates.

3) I want the spaceport to be a major facility. It combines two 1200 BP stations, plus the cargo handling. Plus I might give it some other ability before the game is completed.

That may be so, but for the cargo handling alone it's not really worth expending 3600 BP for a level 2 spaceport. I mean, 3600 for the cargo handling and unlimited resupply links is an expensive but worthwhile investment, but you can get that same result and no worry about wasting resources by keeping the spaceport limited to cargo handling alone. I mean, at 1200 BP it's already a pretty major facility, but at 3600 it's the most expensive thing in the installation construction menu and beyond a level 1 spaceport all it does is add to the cargo handling modifier.

Useful, but for a system that will require 1.5 times the Build Point cost of an Academy, Lab, Shipyard, GMC, GFTF or Sector Command that's really quite expensive and the only reason that cost increase seems to be happening is the mission creep of spaceports. That's not counting the 8 times greater amount of shipping that's needed to get a spaceport where it's needed compared to a resource transfer station either.

Easiest way to handle the expense issue is by simply removing the mission creep. Let the spaceport remain a 1200 BP cargo handling facility, the resource transfer tasks can be handled by the dedicated facilities of the same costs. It's a little more fiddly at first blush, but you're going to be juggling fuel and ordnance transfer stations anyway, and this way you don't need to worry about doubling up on transfer capacity because you also have spaceports with the same ability. The only question you need to ask is if you have the appropriate type of the transfer facility on planet.

4) The Spaceport, Ordnance Transfer Station and Refuelling Station are all ground-based facilities and also conventional tech so there is no problem with a non-TN start having them.

The spaceport is not available in a conventional tech start in 7.10.

With regard to the PDC, I am seriously considering removing PDCs from the game. They create exceptions for a number of rules, confuse new players, add complexity to ground combat without necessarily adding a commensurate improvement in game play, and their maintenance-free status can be an exploit. I may replace them with some additional types of ground forces to improve defences planetary defences and keep all 'ships' in space. One of their major advantages is to allow maintenance-free bases on new colonies, but even that is no longer as great an advantage given the new maintenance system (you can build orbital bases that can provide their own maintenance facilities and just ship in supplies).

Eh, planets need some level of viable anti orbital attack system, and I'm not sure ground forces can provide that. A station might, but you'd need to research stealth to get a station that can provide a decent surprise to a committed enemy.

Then again, early sensors are... not that great. You might be able to do quite a bit with a station with good passive sensors and a good firing computer if you've got seeking missiles, but, well, early sensors are crap.

To be honest, PDCs seem to serve two major purposes to me when you get rid of the methods they let you cheat the maintenance system. The first is anti orbital combat ability through slinging missiles and energy weapons at enemy ships. The other major purpose is slowing down enemy occupation by forcing the enemy to siege PDC after PDC with ground forces, or by denying them the planet altogether because of the collateral damage done by orbital strikes to root out the defenders.
 

 

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