Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: December 04, 2017, 01:38:42 AM »

I do really like the idea of daring rescue missions.
Posted by: obsidian_green
« on: December 03, 2017, 03:33:11 PM »

I'm not advocating that particular use of POWs, but I would like to see them have some added effect or utility in the game. I run across planets that have survivors and POWs on them, but I can't really do anything with them, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: schroeam
« on: December 02, 2017, 10:34:58 PM »

I think this is still Steve's cubbyhole for suggestions.  If not, please move this to the appropriate place.

POW's.  I'd like to see the option for rescuing POW's from enemy planets, either as part of conquering the planet, a special operations mission for an espionage team, or a mission for a marine company or battalion.   Maybe, if Steve is even bored enough one day, code in a diplomatic option to exchange prisoners utilizing a civilian ship (task of "pick up enemy POW for exchange" at your planet and then "exchange POW"at enemy planet, as long as one enemy planet is located.  Obviously this would require a change to how prisoners are handled by the AI, as well as the player, both when captured from lifepods and from ship boarding actions.

I realize it's a long shot with the current refit and modernization program Aurora is undergoing, but something for later.

Adam.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: November 14, 2017, 01:59:26 PM »

#saveThePDC

Hmmm, how about making planetary population caps flexible based on the infrastructure? For instance, tidally locked planets can have much higher population caps just by having infrastructure in the less hospitable places, water planets can just have infrastructure built in the shallows, et cetera. Maybe make the useful population scale poorly for circumstances like that? (agriculture and environmental getting higher percentages as an increasing portion of your population lives in underwater spacedomes)
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: November 14, 2017, 12:39:33 PM »

Make it so some planets are better for certain kinds of facilities when they are not terraformed.

For instance, in real life, Titan is perfect for setting up factories and supercomputers.  The Landauer Limit is the theoretical maximum computation speed, and is inversely proportional to the computer's temperature.  Because Titan is so cold, and has a thick atmosphere to use as a heatsink, Titan would be perfect for use by datacenters.  A similar situation occurs with manufacturing.  Because Titan is so cold and has a thick atmosphere, manufacturing equipment can be run harder and hotter, improving production speed.

Basically, Titan is better for a colony the way it is now than if we terraformed it to be easily habitable.  I imagine a situation where society solely uses cryptocurrencies, with bitcoin mines on Titan maintaining the blockchain.
Posted by: serger
« on: November 13, 2017, 03:56:28 PM »

Add fuel trap component, that can gather sorium from space dust and burn it as raw fuel (see ramjet) to use for commercial ships, surveyors and raiders, especially NPR (will reduce disbelieve with no-fuel-usage NPR rule exception, and/or simplify strategic scripts for NPR). Maybe usable for other TN minerals gathering in nebulas.

Add more dangerous "wild" aliens, that can be generated in any new system, or make their generating probability customizable. (Especially significant for early C# AI - those hi-tech wild gees might be much simpler to code, comparing to growing race, that have an economy, strategy, shipping system, shipping lines, colonizing, ammo supply and so on, that is complete coding nightmare.)

(And that is duplicate from C# Aurora subforum)
Another suggestion that can limit the overusage of energy/kinetic weapon:
Every shot triggers a roll to maintenance incident, so firing vessels will consume supply much faster and have good chances of disabling weapon, if there is no sufficient supply value.
Posted by: Scandinavian
« on: November 11, 2017, 06:10:41 PM »

Slow steaming
There is currently no incentive for vessels in Aurora to cruise at less than their maximum speed. But wet-navy vessels often do so in reality, in order to economize on fuel. To simulate this, the fuel consumption calculation could be modified to use actual speed, rather than engine design speed, within a certain envelope of the engine design speed (say -50 % to +25 %, unlockable via research the same way the engine power multiplier currently is).

To ensure that it is still always more economical to simply design an engine optimized for the desired cruise speed, suggest adding a fuel efficiency penalty of (4 x [percentage deviation from design speed]^2). This will ensure that slow steaming remains economical throughout the suggested -50 % to +25 % performance envelope, while still providing an advantage for designs purpose-built for their desired cruise speed.

Assuming all other parameters are retained, this suggestion would effectively triple the deployment range of warships in the case where they just need to get there when they get there.

To further disincentivize warships from moving at above their design speed unless they have an urgent reason to do so (such as people shooting at them), suggest applying the same 4x[speed difference]^2 penalty to maintenance failure rate and progression speed of the overhaul clock when moving above their design speed, representing the fact that they really are not designed to do that for any extended period of time.
Posted by: serger
« on: November 11, 2017, 06:00:09 PM »

I'll duplicate it here too:

Alien ship classes can be displayed by the phonetic alphabet tables, as it was in NATO naval practice ("Alpha class", "Bravo class", ... - list ordered by the time of first contact with this class).
That's easy, RP-cool, handy to memorize, and doesn't tell you any unnecessary information about alien designs.
More of that, this table can be selected from the list (NATO/ITU-R RTPA, Greek PA, Hebrew PA, LAPD PA), or even written by player himself.

Another solution is to use first names from officer names table, filtered by the main name scheme of that empire.
It will give more length, so when you contact more classes of that empire, than there are words in this phonetic alphabet - there will be less need with names list to use suffixes (like "Alpha-2" or "Alpha II" classes - those can be misunderstood by new players as succeed classes or blocks of one class).
But it can be less handy, because there are some very similar or even duplicated names in those name lists.

I'd like to see first variant (RTPA list) - smth like "Klingon Alpha class" ... "Klingon Victor class" ... "Klingon Alpha-2 class" ... - but only if it will be some personalization possibility.
If it will be hardcoded algorithm - than I'd prefer last variant (officer first names list of empire scheme).
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: November 05, 2017, 05:46:35 PM »

Institute a system like Hearts of Iron has for production efficiency.  In HoI, if you build a lot of sherman tanks, you get better at making them.  So the later ones are cheaper or are built quicker than the earlier ones.

This would be useful for ground units, missiles, fighters, and ship components.

Yeah, another way to think about it is as a penalty to output until a sufficient investments has been made.

Shipyards do kind of have it built in a bit through their retooling mechanics.


If you want a system more realistic then in HoIs production though what you want to do is basically variable retooling. The bigger series you order (in terms of total cost) the more investments in tooling, assembly lines and specialized factories make sense to do.

It will take much longer to set up the most efficient production line, but once done each unit will be much cheaper. A tradeoff between short setup a high unit cost (workshop/prototyping) vs long setup and low cost (sequenced assembly line with optimized flow).
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: November 05, 2017, 12:35:27 PM »

Institute a system like Hearts of Iron has for production efficiency.  In HoI, if you build a lot of sherman tanks, you get better at making them.  So the later ones are cheaper or are built quicker than the earlier ones.

This would be useful for ground units, missiles, fighters, and ship components.
Posted by: Seolferwulf
« on: October 28, 2017, 07:06:59 PM »

Suggestion: Inverse the effect of the "Show Surveyed Bodies" checkbox on the Minerals-tab.

Reason:
Whenever the checkbox is checked it adds a white ring to every body that has been surveyed, which makes the screen very noisy.
That's why I only check it whenever I want to know which bodies still need to be surveyed.
If the effect is inversed you could simply leave it ticked and have your survey ships remove the noise from your populated systems.

Pros:
+ one option less you have to fumble around with every now and then
+ as an added bonus you have less redundant information on the screen, since the checkbox "Show Mineral Concentrations" already implies what has been surveyed.

Cons:
- people will have to get used to the inversed effect

... feel free to add more to the pros and cons if something comes to mind.
Posted by: Detros
« on: October 22, 2017, 12:33:47 PM »

Money gained from CMCs selling mined resources to civilian market could add to Annual Wealth Creation of given colony so that wealth bonuses from governors could then affect the amount of money one gets from those CMCs.
Posted by: serger
« on: October 13, 2017, 12:12:59 PM »

Separate "Civilian Mining Colony" event type into pair of types:
1. "New CMC"
and
2. "CMC expantion"
- in the same way, as there are different event types "New Officer" and "Officer Update".

The reason is, that there is no need to react to CMC expantion at all, but when you have a new CMC, than you want to decide if you have to buy minerals from this new CMC.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: October 11, 2017, 07:39:07 AM »

Yes, we do indeed know for a fact that the mechanical accuracy of the gun doesn't matter at all in Aurora, because if you take the same gun and slap on a twice as good fire control you always will get twice as high hit chance, meaning mechanical accuracy is not considered an issue in any weapon.

What I am talking about isn't hitting at 400 million kms out though, but at for example twice or +10% of the current max range...

If mechanical accuracy is NEVER any issue at all at current ranges, and with a good enough FC you could get 100% hit chance out to max range, then why is it suddenly such an insurmountable issue that you get 0% chance to hit at current max ranges +10%?

My point is that the current max ranges are totally arbitrary and don't make any logical sense from an accuracy perspective, they only make sense from a projectile damage perspective where the projectile and beam loses all damage potential beyond a certain range. ( Which for projectiles is consistent with being slowed down like ships are ).

[waves arms wildly]
Warning Will Robinson!  Danger! YASTD (Yet Another Suggestion Thread Diversion) Detected!
[battery pack removed]
[arms stop, slumps over]

Could we please take this conversation to a different thread?  I think a good rule of thumb for YASTD is if someone reading the post won't remember what the original suggestion was, or if the back and forth goes on more that a couple of laps.  I lost track of this one a couple of laps back.

Thanks!
John
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: October 11, 2017, 03:32:09 AM »

Thats not really true, mechanical accuracy of the gun would have nothing to do with short range hit chances, which purely have to do with your ability to predict where the target will be in five seconds.  (and possibly tracking speed of the gun is also a factor, if the target moves faster than the gun can precisely slew)

So like lets say the gun has a certain (very narrow) cone in which it can hit stuff.  It doesn't matter at super close range, where the only issue is swinging the gun to the correct orientation quickly, but 400 million kms out, its a big factor.

Yes, we do indeed know for a fact that the mechanical accuracy of the gun doesn't matter at all in Aurora, because if you take the same gun and slap on a twice as good fire control you always will get twice as high hit chance, meaning mechanical accuracy is not considered an issue in any weapon.

What I am talking about isn't hitting at 400 million kms out though, but at for example twice or +10% of the current max range...

If mechanical accuracy is NEVER any issue at all at current ranges, and with a good enough FC you could get 100% hit chance out to max range, then why is it suddenly such an insurmountable issue that you get 0% chance to hit at current max ranges +10%?

My point is that the current max ranges are totally arbitrary and don't make any logical sense from an accuracy perspective, they only make sense from a projectile damage perspective where the projectile and beam loses all damage potential beyond a certain range. ( Which for projectiles is consistent with being slowed down like ships are ).
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 52