Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 66590 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Culise

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2016, 10:52:01 PM »
I have a minor question, if you're reworking the naming lists.    A handful of name lists tend to have trailing spaces (the Astronomer ship name list, for instance).   They aren't exactly a tremendous issue, but they can sometimes be mildly irritating.   Will these be given a quick trim while you copy them over, or will you be importing them as-is for now? 
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 813 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2016, 04:00:22 AM »
I have a minor question, if you're reworking the naming lists.    A handful of name lists tend to have trailing spaces (the Astronomer ship name list, for instance).   They aren't exactly a tremendous issue, but they can sometimes be mildly irritating.   Will these be given a quick trim while you copy them over, or will you be importing them as-is for now?

Is it the same database until I decide what the long-term replacement will be. I'll take a look at cleaning it up though.
 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 848
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2016, 01:55:02 PM »
I have a minor question, if you're reworking the naming lists.    A handful of name lists tend to have trailing spaces (the Astronomer ship name list, for instance).   They aren't exactly a tremendous issue, but they can sometimes be mildly irritating.   Will these be given a quick trim while you copy them over, or will you be importing them as-is for now?
The worst is probably the Victory Ships, which I didn't properly sanitize before I posted it.  That really needs to be cleaned up, and there's also some issue with some of the US Auxiliary ship lists.  I forget exactly which ones.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2016, 03:29:35 PM »
I'd imagine with a few of these, you'd see new bonuses as well, such as Damage Control Bonus, MSP usage reduction, random chance that ship components are treated as 1 or so HTK tougher, crew casualty chance reduction, boarding combat bonuses (against boarders), etc.
Not sure what the science officer would do. Increase the science yield from salvage operations perhaps?

Just thought of another bonus the Chief Engineer could give: Life Support Tenacity Bonus. As long as the commander remains alive, the carrying capacity for life support until dangerous failures occur is higher based on their bonus. Makeshift life support systems will meanwhile last longer based on their bonus if it comes to that.

I realize this risks turning this into a suggestion thread, but maybe tie it in with a variety of bridge modules?

No bridge (Fighter, FAC) gets you a ship either with a single commander or none at all, depending on how in depth Steve wants to be. I'd actually suggest none, since having to assign commanders to hundreds of fighter craft always made me wonder if anyone played without automatic assignments on.

Then there could be the normal 1HS bridge, allowing for a commander, a 5 HS science/tactical/engineering/command bridge allowing for a science/tac/engineering officer or CAG, things like that, and maybe boost the flag bridge up to 25HS and have it allow for all of those and a task force command. Would add some more personality to ships as well.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 112
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2016, 09:10:27 PM »
I think the way the navy chain of command works right now is just fine. All of my problems with it would pretty much be fixed by adding a "max rank" setting for ships so that I stop seeing admirals on fighters. Ships which're taking enough damage to lose officers and select a new commander are pretty much on the verge of death anyway. The most I'd do to try and simulate chain of command at this level is add a "first officer" post to all ships with a bridge, who must be one rank below whoever is in command and adds 1/10th of his bonuses to the ship. I'd also add the possibility of the top position only being allowed to have one officer at any given time so that I stop having to add a new filler rank every time I end up with two sky marshals.
Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's dark revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1707
  • Thanked: 59 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2016, 11:19:54 PM »
I like both those ideas, regular bridge allow a first officer who applies a fraction of their bonuses, perhaps 50%?
Then the flag bridge giving a full crew similar to the naval command positions.
Then again you basically already get that by making a new task force and shoving them into the flag bridge vessel right?
" 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 Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 813 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2016, 03:59:02 AM »
I've been considering multiple officers per ship for a while. I just never got around to it. The rewrite is the best opportunity though so I will very likely add this when I get to the Commanders window. I also like the different bridges suggestion.

I've been on holiday with my family this week and away from my PC so not got anything done. I'm back at the weekend and will be continuing work on the mining and shipyard tabs of the economics window.
 
The following users thanked this post: hiphop38

Offline JOKER

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2016, 05:43:17 PM »
Any plan in future to improve beam weapon and ECM/ECCM?
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 208
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2016, 06:31:28 PM »
I've been considering multiple officers per ship for a while. I just never got around to it. The rewrite is the best opportunity though so I will very likely add this when I get to the Commanders window. I also like the different bridges suggestion.

I like the different bridge ideas.  Also the idea of having an XO who could step up (apply some reduction factor to ship's rediness and morale) if the CO is killed.  Maybe also look at ground forces and having staff positions tied to the headquarters?  Just a thought.

Overall, I am very excited about the changes coming with the rewrite.  The last 10+ years have been pretty incredible with what you have done with your little hobby, and how you have let us come along for the ride. 

Thank you Steve.

Adam.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 112
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #39 on: June 23, 2016, 07:27:37 PM »
I don't think ground forces staff would be very useful since ground units only really do one (two if you're not genocidal) thing. Maybe if the army had more units that did more things, e.g mining/survey brigades, it'd be a little more worthwhile.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 07:32:56 PM by ChildServices »
Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's dark revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 208
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #40 on: June 23, 2016, 08:37:35 PM »
I don't think ground forces staff would be very useful since ground units only really do one (two if you're not genocidal) thing. Maybe if the army had more units that did more things, e.g mining/survey brigades, it'd be a little more worthwhile.

;) Point taken:

1. Combat
1. Garrison
1. Construction
1. Ruin Excavation

There is as much room for logistics, operations, and intelligence staff officers on ground forces as there are with fleets.  Just a thought to open up the Headquarters units to multiple officers.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 374
  • Thanked: 30 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2016, 01:54:11 PM »
I realize this risks turning this into a suggestion thread, but maybe tie it in with a variety of bridge modules?

No bridge (Fighter, FAC) gets you a ship either with a single commander or none at all, depending on how in depth Steve wants to be. I'd actually suggest none, since having to assign commanders to hundreds of fighter craft always made me wonder if anyone played without automatic assignments on.

Then there could be the normal 1HS bridge, allowing for a commander, a 5 HS science/tactical/engineering/command bridge allowing for a science/tac/engineering officer or CAG, things like that, and maybe boost the flag bridge up to 25HS and have it allow for all of those and a task force command. Would add some more personality to ships as well.
On the point of "no commanders for fighters", you know there is a Fighter Combat Bonus on commanders for a reason, right?
Both that and fleet initiative rating is -very- important for fighter combat, I figure, as high-speed interception can make the range- setting for each engagement more significant.
Also, given how promotions currently work (you need 3-4 commanders in an immediately subordinate position for every single commander promoted up into the next), you'll need a lot of ships to compliment them anyway.
Also provides the opportunity to get your "ace pilot" with the impressively high Fighter Combat Bonus and fleet initiative rating to make fighter battles a bit more exciting, as they currently are.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2016, 02:15:21 PM »
On the point of "no commanders for fighters", you know there is a Fighter Combat Bonus on commanders for a reason, right?
Both that and fleet initiative rating is -very- important for fighter combat, I figure, as high-speed interception can make the range- setting for each engagement more significant.
Also, given how promotions currently work (you need 3-4 commanders in an immediately subordinate position for every single commander promoted up into the next), you'll need a lot of ships to compliment them anyway.
Also provides the opportunity to get your "ace pilot" with the impressively high Fighter Combat Bonus and fleet initiative rating to make fighter battles a bit more exciting, as they currently are.

Oh yeah, the game is definitely currently built around commanders for fighters. And it's fine if it stays that way; I was just saying if it were me I'd probably change that to reduce micromanagement. So instead of a commander in every fighter you'd have a carrier using a command bridge with a CAG slot, and then the CAG might have skills like "Pilot Training" that adds grade bonus to all fighters while they're docked, and a "Command" skill that works like fleet initiative for fighter squadrons. Or whatever.

The need to have multiple lower ranked officers would actually be reduced by the idea of multiple officers on each ship; you might have one captain and 1-4 commanders on your larger ships, for example (and just one commander on your frigates and destroyers).

Edit: We're in the middle of a steam sale in which I'm spending perfectly good money on new games, and now all I want to do is play more Aurora.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 02:17:20 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline hubgbf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2016, 08:34:52 AM »
Hi,

While talking about officers, what about a secondary bridge (or a tertiary one) ?
If the main bridge takes a hit, killing or wounding the captain, the secondary one with the XO would command the ship.
Of course there will be some delay in such change, depending on crew quality, and some maluses.

This way you gain the ability to affect an officer by bridge to a ship.

My 2 cts.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6470
  • Thanked: 813 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2016, 06:07:52 PM »
Hi,

While talking about officers, what about a secondary bridge (or a tertiary one) ?
If the main bridge takes a hit, killing or wounding the captain, the secondary one with the XO would command the ship.
Of course there will be some delay in such change, depending on crew quality, and some maluses.

This way you gain the ability to affect an officer by bridge to a ship.

My 2 cts.

Yes, I think a 1 HS auxiliary control would be even better than a larger bridge.
 

 

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