Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 351926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20453 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1920 on: February 05, 2020, 03:35:51 AM »
Could Fighter-Sized Crew Quarters be made 0 Tons and made Fighter Only with a hard limit on the number of modules mounted? Or maybe Fighters having a certain amount of free crew space equivalent to a fighter sized crew quarters module, but only ships designated as Fighters would have them? The size of Fighter Sized Crew modules and Tiny engineering spaces piss me off...

The fighter crew quarters component is only 2 tons (0.04 HS). Fighters (and FAC) already benefit from not requiring a dedicated command component due to size, but that is reasonable given that the crew will be in close proximity. They can also reduce required crew space by having short deployment times. 
 

Offline Kiruth

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • K
  • Posts: 5
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1921 on: February 05, 2020, 08:40:20 AM »
A typical issue with beam based fleets is that they are "all or nothing" weapons: if you are slower than the opponent and you can't dictate the engagement you are going to be destroyed and/or kited. 

I don't know if it was already suggested, but I would like to see an option to give an order (or a tech) to temporarily boost engine performance for a brief period of time.  This should be within reasonable percentage (eg.  20/30% boost), should not be deactivable at will (it will continue to get boosted for a specific time) and should come with an heavy cost such as an high risk of explosion of the engines or loss of all power for the ship for a time after the boost (like jump shock). 

I much prefer the first option because it provide an hard choice also for the fleet that has the advantage (do we prefer continuing kiting with the risk of engine explosion or are we ready for a close quarter fight?). 
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1922 on: February 05, 2020, 08:45:15 AM »
A typical issue with beam based fleets is that they are "all or nothing" weapons: if you are slower than the opponent and you can't dictate the engagement you are going to be destroyed and/or kited. 

I don't know if it was already suggested, but I would like to see an option to give an order (or a tech) to temporarily boost engine performance for a brief period of time.  This should be within reasonable percentage (eg.  20/30% boost), should not be deactivable at will (it will continue to get boosted for a specific time) and should come with an heavy cost such as an high risk of explosion of the engines or loss of all power for the ship for a time after the boost (like jump shock). 

I much prefer the first option because it provide an hard choice also for the fleet that has the advantage (do we prefer continuing kiting with the risk of engine explosion or are we ready for a close quarter fight?).

There was quite a heated discussion on how to "fix" this a couple of pages ago... you should check that out.   ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: Kiruth, Alsadius, BigBacon

Offline Kiruth

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • K
  • Posts: 5
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1923 on: February 05, 2020, 09:46:44 AM »
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=9841. msg118598#msg118598 date=1580913915
Quote from: Kiruth link=topic=9841. msg118596#msg118596 date=1580913620
A typical issue with beam based fleets is that they are "all or nothing" weapons: if you are slower than the opponent and you can't dictate the engagement you are going to be destroyed and/or kited.   

I don't know if it was already suggested, but I would like to see an option to give an order (or a tech) to temporarily boost engine performance for a brief period of time.   This should be within reasonable percentage (eg.   20/30% boost), should not be deactivable at will (it will continue to get boosted for a specific time) and should come with an heavy cost such as an high risk of explosion of the engines or loss of all power for the ship for a time after the boost (like jump shock).   

I much prefer the first option because it provide an hard choice also for the fleet that has the advantage (do we prefer continuing kiting with the risk of engine explosion or are we ready for a close quarter fight?). 

There was quite a heated discussion on how to "fix" this a couple of pages ago. . .  you should check that out.    ;)

Thanks, will do  :)
 

Offline Ektor

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 191
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1924 on: February 06, 2020, 07:57:25 PM »
Quote from: Mini link=topic=9841.  msg118524#msg118524 date=1580784010
And also cause problems for empires with commercial companies disabled, since you can't transfer trade goods yourself.     

Thats.  .  .      Exactly what I proposed in suggestion 3?

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=9841.  msg118535#msg118535 date=1580800862
Yes.    .     you could simply add an order to pick up and drop of trade goods that work the same as any other transport order an allow the player to set up trade routes if they choose to do that themselves.   

Quote from: Ektor
Basically instead of spawning civilian lines, you could build freighters and use either default orders to automate or direct orders to allow it to ship trade goods from planet to planet

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=9841.  msg118535#msg118535 date=1580800862
I also think such a "simulation" system could be optional in the first place as not everyone would like to have it.     But then again.  .  .   the more optional system these is the more exceptions in the code there has to be and it become more complex to do.   

I definitely think it should be optional.   I have a liking for the X series and its clones, this simulation of space freight lines is exactly up my alley.   I suggested that because I think it would be loads of fun, but different people have differing ideas of what constitutes fun.   

Quote from: Akhillis link=topic=9841.  msg118548#msg118548 date=1580823673
Even if you could transfer trade goods manually

Which is exactly what I said.   

Quote from: Akhillis link=topic=9841.  msg118548#msg118548 date=1580823673
the player has little control over the surpluses and deficits at an empire-wide level.    AFAIK the only way you can influence production is by sending more colonists to a planet.   

That's why it should be a bonus only mechanic.    Because the more you can fulfill the demand, the higher your productivity, but you would always be capped at the exports that your empire produces.    Unless there was a way to build civilian industries to build exports, but I think that would be too much micro. 

Edit: All periods I write keep having spaces added after them.  Can I disable this?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 08:09:15 PM by Ektor »
 

Offline kuhaica

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1925 on: February 07, 2020, 10:24:02 AM »
Being able to build Civilian "production" centres would be good, but it would be nicer to have something akin to "Civilian Shipping" where companies show up at random depending on the demands and the Player can subsidise them.  Also, I do like the idea of the civilian goods giving a bonus for being fulfilled rather than negatives for not, just because of the nature of the early game and some scenarios where you expand slowly. 
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2794
  • Thanked: 1054 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1926 on: February 07, 2020, 12:54:12 PM »
Edit: All periods I write keep having spaces added after them.  Can I disable this?
It's an anti-spam feature because the forum software thinks you're trying to put in URL links in a sneaky way or something. It'll go away once you have 10 posts, I believe.
 

Offline papent

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 45 times
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1927 on: February 07, 2020, 08:24:02 PM »
Could jump point distance (jump engine modifier) apply on both sides of the jump?

I was thinking that in addition to how far away from the destination jump point you can appear, jump point distance also controls how far away from the originating jump point you can initiate a jump. Shaving some distance/time.
 ;D
This also creates the potential to surprise an opponent running to escape a system from a known jump point by actually jumping from behind them in a stern chase and have your ships jump shock wearing off when they are just arriving...
In my humble opinion anything that could be considered a balance issue is a moot point unless the AI utilize it against you because otherwise it's an exploit you willing choose to use to game the system. 
Rule 0 Is effect : "The SM is always right/ What SM Says Goes."
 
The following users thanked this post: Alsadius

Offline DFNewb

  • Captain
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 508
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1928 on: February 10, 2020, 08:51:43 AM »
Could you please add this:

 Newly constructed fighters will automatically assign and land onto mothership in orbit pre-selected.  Maybe even an option to do it for taskforce (if TF's are gone then just any empty hanger in orbit) if there is hanger space.
 

Offline papent

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 45 times
  • Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1929 on: February 10, 2020, 09:22:16 AM »
Could you please add this:

 Newly constructed fighters will automatically assign and land onto mothership in orbit pre-selected.

I was under the impression that the preferred strikegroup listing on ship class design did this already.
In my humble opinion anything that could be considered a balance issue is a moot point unless the AI utilize it against you because otherwise it's an exploit you willing choose to use to game the system. 
Rule 0 Is effect : "The SM is always right/ What SM Says Goes."
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1930 on: February 10, 2020, 05:46:53 PM »
So, regarding Missile Launcher Sizes. Steve already said the he will be including pre-TN armors. That got me thinking. So, currently Missile Launcher tech starts off fully developed in C#, but wouldn't it be necessary to re-develop the tech to take advantage of TN materials? At least for a Conventional Start. I suggest as part of a Conventional Start we have to research either the original VB6 tech lines for missile launcher size, or just have a "TN Launchers" tech, maybe make it a 500 or 1000 RP Tech.
 

Offline spqrein

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • s
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1931 on: February 10, 2020, 10:20:55 PM »
Quote from: Kiruth link=topic=9841.   msg118596#msg118596 date=1580913620
A typical issue with beam based fleets is that they are "all or nothing" weapons: if you are slower than the opponent and you can't dictate the engagement you are going to be destroyed and/or kited.     

I don't know if it was already suggested, but I would like to see an option to give an order (or a tech) to temporarily boost engine performance for a brief period of time.     This should be within reasonable percentage (eg.     20/30% boost), should not be deactivable at will (it will continue to get boosted for a specific time) and should come with an heavy cost such as an high risk of explosion of the engines or loss of all power for the ship for a time after the boost (like jump shock).     

I much prefer the first option because it provide an hard choice also for the fleet that has the advantage (do we prefer continuing kiting with the risk of engine explosion or are we ready for a close quarter fight?).   

I have not fully read all the changes but this idea sounds good but in my view isn't.     So slow ships can boost to close range, then fast ships can boost to keep at range, not solving the problem.     

Guns:  If mainly limited by fire control range like in VB.     Have most guns at early levels reach that far to start and vary things like accuracy, damage, or tracking speed.     Now higher tech engines or faster ships (gun ships) don't fight by kitting but maintain the advantage of their better tech or speed to choose when to engage or length of engagement.     Can they still kit at max range yes but not without some risk.     

It would be nice if some gun types could shot much farther but require a spotting ship or drone to increase range.     I would limit the drones to the ship that can carry it, thus fighters and small capital ships probably can't make use of them but larger battleships could.   In fleet engagement would give a role to fighter to find and clear the area of these type of small targets to prevent long range fire.   Maybe even lead to who can gain local space superiority so the battleships can stand off and blast things.   

« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 10:28:40 PM by spqrein »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1932 on: February 11, 2020, 07:11:01 AM »
A suggestion of small balance if it has not been changed already...

I think that the 15cm laser at 4HS is too small, it's general DPS is way to effective very early, especially when you consider that 15cm lasers can have really long range too they are extremely effective in general in comparison with most other lasers. They often even can compete with high damage lasers in terms of cutting through enemy ship armour through cheer DPS, almost no other laser can do this as effective as the 15cm.

10cm is 3HS
12cm is 4HS
15cm is 4HS
20cm is 6HS
25cm is 8HS
30cm is 10HS

15cm lasers should have a size of 5HS.

I also think that weapons perhaps should be able to have fractions of HS as well to balance them a bit better.

In addition to this larger weapons also often get shafted due to not being able to produce enough capacity to synchronise with the 5sec  charge rate per turn. I think that capacity that is over from a previous turn should go into the weapon in the next turn (after it fired) so a weapons might fire in say 4 turns sometimes and 5 turns times. This should even out the benefit of different weapons and make it easier to select a weapon type that best fit the ship you are trying to design. Right now, certain weapons simple are not usable as they synch very badly with the capacitor tech. Take the 20cm laser that is really good at capacitor 5 but really inefficient at any other lever in comparison with a 15cm (even if the size was increased to 5HS) until capacitor 10 where it still is marginally better than a 15cm laser due to its larger size but higher damage and better capacitor tech finally make it better, but not by that much.

In the same spirit perhaps you should be able to fire weapons even more often if you can deliver enough power to do so, like a 10cm lares cold fire twice with a capacitor 6 for example.

You could then also redo how rail-guns work a bit so the capacitor sort of dictate how often they fire rather than they firing 4 shots every time they fire, which seems a bit odd when they fire four shot but only every 20sec instead of one shot every five seconds.

This obviously would effect balance between Gauss and Rail-guns so would have to be handled with great care. I think that Gauss in general are very under powered weapons in general when you compare them with rail-guns, both in therms of technology and cost as rail-guns can use the same fire-control as all other beam weapons while the Gauss require turrets and fast firing fire-controls.

Changing this would also "fix" rail-gun versus Gauss balance as early rail-guns would perhaps only fire ones or twice per turn and increase in speed later on, it would also make rail-guns semi useful for PD even later on.

I think that weapons could be shown with true fire speed rather than per 5 second turns... although the game would make a weapons sometimes fire one or two shots in a turn or more or less turns in between shots.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 07:26:17 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 
The following users thanked this post: Alsadius

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1933 on: February 11, 2020, 10:04:26 AM »
Another suggestion for a quality of life type of thing...

Would it be possible to add an supply automatic order for different things to anything produced on a world add will get picked up by the civilian transports.

As far as I remember there was a problem with adding a supply of thing that might not be available. In addition to that it often is more trouble than it is worth to keep adding more and more of something you build allot and just want shipped out to your colonies. Most often this is mines and automatic mines, but it can be other stuff as well.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20453 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1934 on: February 11, 2020, 10:33:25 AM »
Another suggestion for a quality of life type of thing...

Would it be possible to add an supply automatic order for different things to anything produced on a world add will get picked up by the civilian transports.

As far as I remember there was a problem with adding a supply of thing that might not be available. In addition to that it often is more trouble than it is worth to keep adding more and more of something you build allot and just want shipped out to your colonies. Most often this is mines and automatic mines, but it can be other stuff as well.

You don't have to create matching supply and demand orders. Supply won't get picked up though without matching demand.