Post by: waresky on November 09, 2009, 12:14:51 PM
it would be good to have load missiles and unload missiles collier commands for between colonies transport (made like components commands)
Post by: waresky on November 09, 2009, 02:42:04 PM
in FUEL REPORT-Spare Remaining,SHIPS Lists,r possible setup an "centre on ships to Solar system" BUTTON?
i think r very very useful for jump close to ships trouble and solve fast:)
ty Steve
Post by: IanD on November 10, 2009, 03:28:55 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
STEVE.
in FUEL REPORT-Spare Remaining,SHIPS Lists,r possible setup an "centre on ships to Solar system" BUTTON?
i think r very very useful for jump close to ships trouble and solve fast:)
ty Steve
I thought there was already a check box for this in the F12 screen that centres on the selected task force and if you click on the event in the Event screen that takes you to the ship in trouble.
Regards
Post by: IanD on November 10, 2009, 03:36:18 AM
An unload all ship components in the F12 screen would be useful. By the way the load and unload ship components will not cycle for me or repeat, throws up an event error 'Cargo Group cannot load ship components etc'.
Regards
Post by: waresky on November 10, 2009, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
Ty Ian..but...ehm...am know VERY well Aurora:)Quote from: "waresky"STEVE.
in FUEL REPORT-Spare Remaining,SHIPS Lists,r possible setup an "centre on ships to Solar system" BUTTON?
i think r very very useful for jump close to ships trouble and solve fast:)
ty Steve
I thought there was already a check box for this in the F12 screen that centres on the selected task force and if you click on the event in the Event screen that takes you to the ship in trouble.
Regards
for me betetr r in REPORT on Spare-Fuel and Overhaul maintenance timing Screen the BEST choice BUTTON "goto centre of trouble" NOT when coming out on EVENT..BECAUSE an Admiral who care own Fleet WANNA check MONTHS BEFORE the events coming.
SO PLS STEVE..setup a "Centr on task Group" button in Spare parts-Fuel and Overhaul timing Screen TY V-Much.
Trust me..trust me:)
Post by: waresky on November 10, 2009, 10:09:14 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
SteveRaise hand for me.
An unload all ship components in the F12 screen would be useful. By the way the load and unload ship components will not cycle for me or repeat, throws up an event error 'Cargo Group cannot load ship components etc'.
Regards
Agree
AND plus: "LOAD ALL Ships Components" would BE BETTER order.
Ty again
Ive found an Abandoned Intact City with 1450 piece of cake around:))..so this ORDER r very USEFUL:===
Post by: waresky on November 10, 2009, 10:54:18 AM
Are all useful am think.
Ur "game" growth and become more deepst than u expected:)..after 2 century we need some difference and betetr aknowloedgment and management orders:)))
Ty again
Post by: waresky on November 10, 2009, 11:05:18 AM
Steve.
Economic Budget Reposrt and SITUATION would be very useful if u can add it on Event Screen.
For a fast check on budget level,before going to Red
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 10, 2009, 12:54:07 PM
Brian
Post by: waresky on November 10, 2009, 01:53:26 PM
TECH SYSTEM RESEARCH -Category: "SHIP COMPONENTS"
pls Steve,it's possible BLOCK the Research project column-RP's when u click Queue or Queue Top? for selection better on "order"crescent or descent..and not every time re-click RP's every time once u've select items to research..
Are very useful for get on "Queue Top" in oder of "Cost"..
hope u understand what am mean:))
Post by: zirman on November 11, 2009, 01:53:19 PM
my suggestion is related to ship components manufacturing and its impact on cost and time on a ship construction.
As i understood (thanks to waresky) the components that a player will manufacts during the game, will be used by the shipyard when putting in production a new ship, in order to reduce time and costs of such new ship. This is a very good and interesting feature.
My suggestion is: could you add a "werehouse" section? This will let to the player to have a summary of what he already has in his "stockpile", and add another strategy and logistic element to the game!
Such "werehouse" section could be located in the "industry" window or in the "shipyard" one.
Hope to be usefull to the game development!
Ty
Post by: waresky on November 11, 2009, 02:07:57 PM
Post by: Hawkeye on November 11, 2009, 02:20:32 PM
Quote from: "zirman"
Hi Steve,
my suggestion is related to ship components manufacturing and its impact on cost and time on a ship construction.
As i understood (thanks to waresky) the components that a player will manufacts during the game, will be used by the shipyard when putting in production a new ship, in order to reduce time and costs of such new ship. This is a very good and interesting feature.
My suggestion is: could you add a "werehouse" section? This will let to the player to have a summary of what he already has in his "stockpile", and add another strategy and logistic element to the game!
Such "werehouse" section could be located in the "industry" window or in the "shipyard" one.
Hope to be usefull to the game development!
Ty
Hm, there _is_ the "stockpile" button on the industry screen, which will display all components on that planet.
Do you want a more "global" display of parts in order to avoid the "I need some engines for my earth shipyards and I know there have been laying some around somewhere but where?" syndrome?
Post by: waresky on November 12, 2009, 01:32:44 AM
not very useful
am think Steve if possible cn manage better.
we need more big windows stockpile or much better : warehouse gestion-management
Post by: waresky on November 12, 2009, 01:47:03 PM
Obviously u have a tons of suggestions around to check and thinking up them..
This r another my originals..
In Solar System Map,r possible one day or another gave this feature: when center on a task group,right-click mouse,open a little windows and select DIRECTLY on MAP the Task group,without make a selection in normal list left screen?
Ciao and ty for all.
Post by: boggo2300 on November 12, 2009, 10:15:40 PM
not sure if i've explained this well, I just have a more complex command structure in mind than is currently possible with Aurora
Post by: waresky on November 13, 2009, 08:54:58 AM
this "Cruiser Squadroon" definition coming from High Guard.
ESCORTRON-ASSAULTRON-BATRON-CRURON r all in Imperium universe:) none all can know this acronymus
Post by: boggo2300 on November 13, 2009, 03:18:57 PM
Post by: Beersatron on November 13, 2009, 05:09:51 PM
Post by: boggo2300 on November 15, 2009, 10:45:30 PM
Post by: Father Tim on November 16, 2009, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)
Unlikely, as mines simply dig up what's there. You won't get more Duranium if you don't produce Tritanium as well, you'll simply get no Tritanium. Basically, for every tonne of ore the mine processes, X amount of a particular mineral is produced - independant of the amount of any other mineral produced.
Post by: Beersatron on November 16, 2009, 12:25:58 PM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "boggo2300"Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)
Unlikely, as mines simply dig up what's there. You won't get more Duranium if you don't produce Tritanium as well, you'll simply get no Tritanium. Basically, for every tonne of ore the mine processes, X amount of a particular mineral is produced - independant of the amount of any other mineral produced.
I was under the impression that each mineral is a distinct deposit therefore it would be feasible to direct all your mines to work on just the one mineral/deposit/vein.
Say you have 100 mines on a planet that has:
0.5 Duranium
0.3 Sorium
0.2 Gallicite
0.1 Neutronium
But, all you wanted was the Duranium for now, so why not just direct all your mines to concentrate on Duranium and ignore the other deposits?
Post by: Erik L on November 16, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Quote from: "Father Tim"Quote from: "boggo2300"Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)
Unlikely, as mines simply dig up what's there. You won't get more Duranium if you don't produce Tritanium as well, you'll simply get no Tritanium. Basically, for every tonne of ore the mine processes, X amount of a particular mineral is produced - independant of the amount of any other mineral produced.
I was under the impression that each mineral is a distinct deposit therefore it would be feasible to direct all your mines to work on just the one mineral/deposit/vein.
Say you have 100 mines on a planet that has:
0.5 Duranium
0.3 Sorium
0.2 Gallicite
0.1 Neutronium
But, all you wanted was the Duranium for now, so why not just direct all your mines to concentrate on Duranium and ignore the other deposits?
It's my understanding that each mine will mine its full capacity of each mineral. So if you have 100 mines that mine at a rate of 1200/year, then each year you will get 600 Duranium (using your .5 example).
Post by: sloanjh on November 17, 2009, 12:28:04 AM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Beersatron"I was under the impression that each mineral is a distinct deposit therefore it would be feasible to direct all your mines to work on just the one mineral/deposit/vein.
Say you have 100 mines on a planet that has:
0.5 Duranium
0.3 Sorium
0.2 Gallicite
0.1 Neutronium
But, all you wanted was the Duranium for now, so why not just direct all your mines to concentrate on Duranium and ignore the other deposits?
It's my understanding that each mine will mine its full capacity of each mineral. So if you have 100 mines that mine at a rate of 1200/year, then each year you will get 600 Duranium (using your .5 example).
Ditto. 600 Duranium, 360 Sorium, 240 Gallicite, 120 Neutronium per year.
John
Post by: Hawkeye on November 17, 2009, 09:34:12 AM
I allways imagined it as there simply being Trans-Newtonian Ore with various amounts of the different elements. You just throw the ore into the mine, which actually is more of a ore processing plant, and it will extract whatever there is, i.e. if 1 ton of ore contains 50kg of Duranium and 35kg of Tritanium, not taking the 35kg Trit will not suddenly make more Dur appear
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 17, 2009, 11:19:49 AM
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)Mines have an annual output and this applies to every mineral that is present based on their accessibility. So if their output is 20 tons, then it will mine 20 tons of every accessibility 1.0 mineral, 12 tons of every accessibility 0.6 mineral, etc. The number of minerals present doesn't change the amount mined for each mineral.
Steve
Post by: IanD on November 19, 2009, 05:11:12 AM
Is it possible to add infrastructure and installations to Mars in the set-up phase before the game begins? For 4.7 I would like to start with a small Mars colony with a single terraforming installation. But that needs infrastructure to support the workers in addition to an installation. I guess I could do it soon after starting the game, or with a terraforming ship, but it would make the back-story so much neater and easier to have it already in place.
Regards
Post by: Beersatron on November 19, 2009, 09:08:52 AM
Quote from: "IanD"
Steve
Is it possible to add infrastructure and installations to Mars in the set-up phase before the game begins? For 4.7 I would like to start with a small Mars colony with a single terraforming installation. But that needs infrastructure to support the workers in addition to an installation. I guess I could do it soon after starting the game, or with a terraforming ship, but it would make the back-story so much neater and easier to have it already in place.
Regards
When you first start the game, enable SM mode and go to the economy screen. I can't remember the exact button but there will be one on the summary tab about edited a colony, from here you can add population, infrastructure and installations plus minerals. Then in the terraforming tab you can add gases to whatever level you like. It is quick and easy.
Lately, I have edited Mars to be Earth like and to have a thriving 100million colony with a small fleet base for FACs, although I gather you want to start with just a small terraforming team and play out the whole process.
Post by: IanD on November 19, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
When you first start the game, enable SM mode and go to the economy screen. I can't remember the exact button but there will be one on the summary tab about edited a colony, from here you can add population, infrastructure and installations plus minerals. Then in the terraforming tab you can add gases to whatever level you like. It is quick and easy.
Thamks Beersatron! It will make writing up the Solar League so much easier. I had a vague idea from Kurts writings it should be possible, just had no idea how. All I need now is 4.7, it's really looking good!
Regards
Post by: Charlie Beeler on November 19, 2009, 11:38:04 AM
The ability to repair fighters that return with battle damage. Carriers should be able to perform component repairs from maintenance stores.
A way to designate a fighter NMC (non-mission capable) that keeps it from launching when the squadron is ordered to launch.
Post by: waresky on November 22, 2009, 06:31:32 AM
A little request,this time (ONLY this time
)Can u..change font dimension for Solar System's name,more BIG,when the Colony reach 1 billions colonist? r little cool for show a strategical colony..
(Traveller capability 1Billion (Caps solar system Name))
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 22, 2009, 11:05:31 AM
Brian
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 24, 2009, 06:15:08 AM
Thanks
Brian
Post by: James Patten on November 24, 2009, 09:05:17 AM
When a geosurvey team believes it can no longer find more minerals on a planet, we get a message to that effect. However, it's now easy to miss the one-time message. It used to repeat itself on every 5-day increment. I don't want a return to that, instead it would be nice if it was noted somewhere on the planet that the planet had been completely re-surveyed by a team. Whether it's done on the mineral window or the general info window for the planet doesn't really matter.
It's very easy to forget which planets have already been resurveyed by a geo team. And since we only get one message, if we miss or forget we can put a team down expecting miracles and months later realize the planet was probably resurveyed already.
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 24, 2009, 10:00:40 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
I'm still playing 4.26 but I'm sure this is still an issue. And I think a prior message asked for the way it currently works.In the latest version it is already done. At the bottom of the colony summary tab (F2 Pop & Production screen) There is a line that says Geological Survey and if it is completed. There is still a message every time that the survey is done on the events screen, but that is a fairly small matter.
When a geosurvey team believes it can no longer find more minerals on a planet, we get a message to that effect. However, it's now easy to miss the one-time message. It used to repeat itself on every 5-day increment. I don't want a return to that, instead it would be nice if it was noted somewhere on the planet that the planet had been completely re-surveyed by a team. Whether it's done on the mineral window or the general info window for the planet doesn't really matter.
It's very easy to forget which planets have already been resurveyed by a geo team. And since we only get one message, if we miss or forget we can put a team down expecting miracles and months later realize the planet was probably resurveyed already.
brian
Post by: waresky on November 24, 2009, 10:18:57 AM
Quote from: "James Patten"
I'm still playing 4.26 but I'm sure this is still an issue. And I think a prior message asked for the way it currently works.Totally Agree.
When a geosurvey team believes it can no longer find more minerals on a planet, we get a message to that effect. However, it's now easy to miss the one-time message. It used to repeat itself on every 5-day increment. I don't want a return to that, instead it would be nice if it was noted somewhere on the planet that the planet had been completely re-surveyed by a team. Whether it's done on the mineral window or the general info window for the planet doesn't really matter.
It's very easy to forget which planets have already been resurveyed by a geo team. And since we only get one message, if we miss or forget we can put a team down expecting miracles and months later realize the planet was probably resurveyed already.
there need some of infos on planetary windows or something.
Post by: Shinanygnz on November 24, 2009, 11:39:34 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "James Patten"I'm still playing 4.26 but I'm sure this is still an issue. And I think a prior message asked for the way it currently works.In the latest version it is already done. At the bottom of the colony summary tab (F2 Pop & Production screen) There is a line that says Geological Survey and if it is completed. There is still a message every time that the survey is done on the events screen, but that is a fairly small matter.
When a geosurvey team believes it can no longer find more minerals on a planet, we get a message to that effect. However, it's now easy to miss the one-time message. It used to repeat itself on every 5-day increment. I don't want a return to that, instead it would be nice if it was noted somewhere on the planet that the planet had been completely re-surveyed by a team. Whether it's done on the mineral window or the general info window for the planet doesn't really matter.
It's very easy to forget which planets have already been resurveyed by a geo team. And since we only get one message, if we miss or forget we can put a team down expecting miracles and months later realize the planet was probably resurveyed already.
brian
With v4.61 it shows this for habitable planets, but not for my automated mining colonies.
Stephen
Post by: sloanjh on November 24, 2009, 11:46:46 AM
Quote from: "Shinanygnz"
Quote from: "Brian"Quote from: "James Patten"I'm still playing 4.26 but I'm sure this is still an issue. And I think a prior message asked for the way it currently works.In the latest version it is already done. At the bottom of the colony summary tab (F2 Pop & Production screen) There is a line that says Geological Survey and if it is completed. There is still a message every time that the survey is done on the events screen, but that is a fairly small matter.
When a geosurvey team believes it can no longer find more minerals on a planet, we get a message to that effect. However, it's now easy to miss the one-time message. It used to repeat itself on every 5-day increment. I don't want a return to that, instead it would be nice if it was noted somewhere on the planet that the planet had been completely re-surveyed by a team. Whether it's done on the mineral window or the general info window for the planet doesn't really matter.
It's very easy to forget which planets have already been resurveyed by a geo team. And since we only get one message, if we miss or forget we can put a team down expecting miracles and months later realize the planet was probably resurveyed already.
brian
With v4.61 it shows this for habitable planets, but not for my automated mining colonies.
Stephen
My recollection is that geosurvey teams don't work for asteroids and possibly moons (too small) - only for planets. Would that explain what you're seeing? In other words, do you (or anyone else) have an automated mining colony on a planet for which the information doesn't show?
John
Post by: boggo2300 on November 24, 2009, 01:21:30 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
My recollection is that geosurvey teams don't work for asteroids and possibly moons (too small) - only for planets. Would that explain what you're seeing? In other words, do you (or anyone else) have an automated mining colony on a planet for which the information doesn't show?
John
I Have a mining colony on Mercury, which has geo'd out, and nothing in the system window (but it is for all the inhabited planets)
Post by: Shinanygnz on November 25, 2009, 03:22:12 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Shinanygnz"
With v4.61 it shows this for habitable planets, but not for my automated mining colonies.
Stephen
My recollection is that geosurvey teams don't work for asteroids and possibly moons (too small) - only for planets. Would that explain what you're seeing? In other words, do you (or anyone else) have an automated mining colony on a planet for which the information doesn't show?
John
Nope. I see it for Earth and the other habitable planets. I have quite a few non-habitable planet and moon colonies (Luna, Venus, Titan, Proxima Centauri A-I, for example) and my uber-team has been discovering away, finding lots of stuff on them until I get the "no more" message, then off they pop to another one. But there is no mention of which ones have been surveyed in the F2 view. Haven't tried any asteroids.
Just been checking and all the ones I've had the team check out are "Terrestrial" bodies (some are N/A on colony cost), so may be that's what they can survey.
I'm sure Steve will enlighten us when he re-appears.
Stephen
Post by: waresky on November 26, 2009, 10:26:40 AM
Fighter's assignment and officers selections.
Am think there r some of thing to make better and easyli management.
When ive 190 fighters and 100 of them r unassigned,am check Ensign and flag unassigned,and select "Fighter op.." skills..am show MORE THAN 100 ensign without assignemnt!!
Are an set up more fast and easy to ASSIGN 100 "good fighter" officer and 100 Fighter free?
in ONE click?
ty
Post by: Father Tim on November 26, 2009, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: "waresky"
Are an set up more fast and easy to ASSIGN 100 "good fighter" officer and 100 Fighter free?
in ONE click?
ty
I generally use the 'Auto Assign' button to initially get officers in roughlythe right commands, then turn the feature off and clean up by hand the ones I want in different assignments.
Note: I don't use Tour Lengths & Automated Assignments while playing, just to aid initial setups when I have a lot of officers to assign.
Post by: waresky on November 27, 2009, 10:34:30 AM
AND in my Ensign pool ive more than 200 Ensign "Fighter Skillled" enough for drive every single fighters.
Post by: boggo2300 on November 27, 2009, 08:27:21 PM
how difficult would it be to offer contracts to the civilian shipping compaines to move stuff between colonies?
for example, I need to get some Automated mines from earth to mercury, but my own freight capacity is busy flooding infrastructure on 2 new colonies out of the sol system at them moment, it would be nice if I could offer a contract to say move 50 Auto mines from Earth to Mercury, and be charged for it.
Don;t know if that would be an easy change or not, but it would be oh so useful
Matt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 28, 2009, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
Could you possibly put in a command for the reasearch que. It would generate an interupt when it is the next tech to be reasearched. I would often like to reasearch a given tech, and then design a system to be reasearched imediately. Instead I usually start another tech to fill out a five day cycle and then design the tech.Not quite sure what you mean here. If research is started on an item from the queue then the Research Complete event for the previous research project will generate an interrupt.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 28, 2009, 02:54:21 PM
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Steve,
how difficult would it be to offer contracts to the civilian shipping compaines to move stuff between colonies?
for example, I need to get some Automated mines from earth to mercury, but my own freight capacity is busy flooding infrastructure on 2 new colonies out of the sol system at them moment, it would be nice if I could offer a contract to say move 50 Auto mines from Earth to Mercury, and be charged for it.
Don;t know if that would be an easy change or not, but it would be oh so useful :). It isn't going to be in v4.7 but it is high on my to do list.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 28, 2009, 02:59:31 PM
Quote from: "waresky"
Steve.I assume you mean on the Galactic Map? Sounds like a good idea so I have increased font size for any system with a population greater than 1 billion.
A little request,this time (ONLY this time
Can u..change font dimension for Solar System's name,more BIG,when the Colony reach 1 billions colonist? r little cool for show a strategical colony..
(Traveller capability 1Billion (Caps solar system Name))
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 28, 2009, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
Steve, could you change the message that is given when a xeno team is done surveying the ruins. Currently the wording is the same as when the ruins are all used up by the engineers. Something like "Your xenology team has completed its survey and reasearch on the ruins and they are now ready for reclemation by engineer units."The message currently reads: "Ruins on Planet X have been fully explored. 100 abandoned installations were found which may be recovered by an engineer regiment". If that isn't what you are seeing then I must have updated it since I put out the last version
If I have updated it further to read:
Ruins on <Planet Name> have been fully surveyed by the <Xeno Team Name>. The alien race which inhabited the planet as been identified as the <Alien Race Name> and their language and symbology have been translated. # abandoned installations were found which may be recovered by an engineer regiment
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 28, 2009, 07:51:46 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Thanks, I like the new wording better. It helps to know what is involved without going to the F2 screen for that colony.Quote from: "Brian"Steve, could you change the message that is given when a xeno team is done surveying the ruins. Currently the wording is the same as when the ruins are all used up by the engineers. Something like "Your xenology team has completed its survey and reasearch on the ruins and they are now ready for reclemation by engineer units."The message currently reads: "Ruins on Planet X have been fully explored. 100 abandoned installations were found which may be recovered by an engineer regiment". If that isn't what you are seeing then I must have updated it since I put out the last version
If I have updated it further to read:
Ruins on <Planet Name> have been fully surveyed by the <Xeno Team Name>. The alien race which inhabited the planet as been identified as the <Alien Race Name> and their language and symbology have been translated. # abandoned installations were found which may be recovered by an engineer regiment
Steve
Brian
Post by: Brian Neumann on November 29, 2009, 06:35:37 AM
Brian
Post by: waresky on November 29, 2009, 07:23:58 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
In the ground units screen, would it be possible to hide units. Specifically to do a tree setup where you could show only the details that you want. For example I have 4 full divisions of troops on my homeworld. It would be nice if I could click on the division hq and have it hide all of the brigade hq's and battalions under it. That way more info is displayed on the first screen where players are less likely to miss them.Hand raise up.
Brian
Same as order of battle display.
very helpfull.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 29, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
In the ground units screen, would it be possible to hide units. Specifically to do a tree setup where you could show only the details that you want. For example I have 4 full divisions of troops on my homeworld. It would be nice if I could click on the division hq and have it hide all of the brigade hq's and battalions under it. That way more info is displayed on the first screen where players are less likely to miss them.I have changed the grid so if you double-click on an HQ, it will hide all the sub-units and show a + sign next to the HQ name to signify hidden units. Double-click again and the units reappear. This will work for both brigade and divisional HQs.
Steve
Post by: WHCnelson on November 29, 2009, 01:57:46 PM
The first would be in the Task Group Orders for sending vessels to a specific
Point or survey point... (i.e. ##GeoSurvey Fleet move to point 30.) I've have
survey fleets say they can't complete orders because there are no unsurveyed bodies
near by... excedera excedera...
The second would be an option to go to and activate a different database...
I have saved a database into a different folder and then had a problem... I tried to
over write the orginal database and I thought it worked but, it didn't work for some
reason...
Thanks
William
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 29, 2009, 02:20:57 PM
Quote from: "WHCnelson"
I have a couple of suggestions for 4.7 or later versions...You can already do this. On the Task Groups window, click the Survey Locations checkbox in the System Location Display Options section and you will get a list of all survey locations. You can then order a fleet to a specific location.
The first would be in the Task Group Orders for sending vessels to a specific
Point or survey point... (i.e. ##GeoSurvey Fleet move to point 30.) I've have
survey fleets say they can't complete orders because there are no unsurveyed bodies
near by... excedera excedera...
Quote
The second would be an option to go to and activate a different database...This is something I used to have in Starfire Assistant so it would be possible for Aurora. I'll look at it for the next version. In the meantime, if you are having problems overwriting the database in the installation directory, just delete it and then copy the other DB into the installation directory. Make sure the program isn't running when you try to overwrite or delete it.
I have saved a database into a different folder and then had a problem... I tried to
over write the orginal database and I thought it worked but, it didn't work for some
reason...
Steve
Post by: ussdefiant on November 29, 2009, 03:54:36 PM
1)Is it possible to get the display of the % of the skill in question back for candidates for creating teams? I'd prefer to know just how much of a hit in quality i'd be taking to put a Captain in instead of the Admiral without having to look them up in the commander screen.
2) Given that ground force commanders do not seem to have access to Xenology bonuses, how are the Engineers supposed to succefully scavenge something that the eggheads notice? Maybe have the local Xenology team/governor provide a bonus of some kind to salvage attempts?
Edit: Also, when Scientists graduate, they don't show their specialty to go with whatever research bonus they have.
Post by: Father Tim on December 01, 2009, 02:17:57 AM
Post by: waresky on December 01, 2009, 10:39:31 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
GREAT.Quote from: "waresky"Steve.I assume you mean on the Galactic Map? Sounds like a good idea so I have increased font size for any system with a population greater than 1 billion.
A little request,this time (ONLY this time
Can u..change font dimension for Solar System's name,more BIG,when the Colony reach 1 billions colonist? r little cool for show a strategical colony..
(Traveller capability 1Billion (Caps solar system Name))
Steve
Useful and i like that.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 03, 2009, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Can we have the 'Rank' of Scientists and Administrators be equal to their Administration level please? Even if the ranks end up being "Administration Level 1", "Administration Level 2", "Administration Level 3", "Administration Level 4", "Administration Level 5", "Administration Level 6", and "Administration Level 7"That's not as easy as it sounds
There is still only on rank structure for commanders but different rank names are displayed for different commander types and navy/army use different promotion criteria. That was a lot easier than trying to add several separate rank structures. With higher admin levels, the above could exceed the number of ranks for a race which would cause a lot of problems.
However, I can see that having to click on every commander to check admin rating is a pain and having to search by admin rating every time you check adminstrators or scientists could get tedious fast. Therefore instead of listing administrators and scientists in order of seniority (which has no meaning in their case), they are now listed in descending order of admin rating. The seniority column that reads 1,2,3,4,5, etc for naval/army officers now contains the admin rating for administrators and scientists
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 03, 2009, 10:20:45 AM
Quote from: "ussdefiant"
Hey, Steve, a couple of niggling concerns when it comes to the new officer system:Bonus shown again. No idea why I took that out
1)Is it possible to get the display of the % of the skill in question back for candidates for creating teams? I'd prefer to know just how much of a hit in quality i'd be taking to put a Captain in instead of the Admiral without having to look them up in the commander screen.
Quote
2) Given that ground force commanders do not seem to have access to Xenology bonuses, how are the Engineers supposed to succefully scavenge something that the eggheads notice? Maybe have the local Xenology team/governor provide a bonus of some kind to salvage attempts?I've changed Xenology Bonuses back to a general skill so that army officers can use it for engineer units and all officers can form Xenology teams. Scientists will be more likely to have the bonus than other types though.
Quote
When Scientists graduate, they don't show their specialty to go with whatever research bonus they have.Added for v4.71
Steve
Post by: Shinanygnz on December 05, 2009, 02:23:08 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "boggo2300"Steve,
how difficult would it be to offer contracts to the civilian shipping compaines to move stuff between colonies?
for example, I need to get some Automated mines from earth to mercury, but my own freight capacity is busy flooding infrastructure on 2 new colonies out of the sol system at them moment, it would be nice if I could offer a contract to say move 50 Auto mines from Earth to Mercury, and be charged for it.
Don;t know if that would be an easy change or not, but it would be oh so useful :). It isn't going to be in v4.7 but it is high on my to do list.
Steve
Slightly akin to this, can you add the ability to give or sell old government civilian ships to the shipping lines please? A physical subsidy to go with the wealth subsidy option.
Stephen
Post by: Shinanygnz on December 05, 2009, 02:28:00 PM
Alternatively, have a Military and a Support checkbox on a TG and I can see either or both as a filter?
Stephen
Post by: boggo2300 on December 05, 2009, 03:16:31 PM
that way later in the game, when you have task groups coming out your ears, you can send a whole TF somewhere, rather than wading through an entire 100+ task groups?
Matt
Post by: georgiaboy1966 on December 06, 2009, 02:29:24 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 07, 2009, 01:08:50 AM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
The ability to repair fighters that return with battle damage. Carriers should be able to perform component repairs from maintenance stores.Any ship in a hanger that is attempting damage control will now uses the maintenance supplies of the mothership if it doesn't have enough of its own supplies (as of v4.76). I could also set up ships landing in a hanger to automatically begin damage control using the same priorities as NPR ships.
Steve
Post by: ZimRathbone on December 07, 2009, 07:41:44 AM
If you set the Speed of a TG to some small value (eg 10) and put it into Training Mode then you still gain TF Training points at the same rate but don't use up fuel.
Suggestion: When the training code sets a new destination, have it set some random speed, possibly on a bell curve, eg ((3d6+2)*0.05*Max Fleet Speed )so that extremly fast and extremely slow speeds are less likely (as is the case in RealLife (tm) ), and speeds would range from 15% to 100% of max, with 60% being most common.
Post by: Beersatron on December 07, 2009, 08:18:22 AM
Select a WayPoint in the locations list and then have the order 'Deploy Buoy' with a picklist of Buoys on the ship.
That way you can setup a mine field pattern on the system map using waypoints and then queue up the orders for your mine layer. The trick would be in ensuring that the ship receiving the order has a Buoy/Mine and that it also has a launcher capable of launching it.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 07, 2009, 08:33:53 AM
Quote from: "ZimRathbone"
I noticed a bit of an exploit in Training:Yes, I noticed that too but I was hoping no one else had
If you set the Speed of a TG to some small value (eg 10) and put it into Training Mode then you still gain TF Training points at the same rate but don't use up fuel.
Suggestion: When the training code sets a new destination, have it set some random speed, possibly on a bell curve, eg ((3d6+2)*0.05*Max Fleet Speed )so that extremly fast and extremely slow speeds are less likely (as is the case in RealLife (tm) ), and speeds would range from 15% to 100% of max, with 60% being most common.
. Good suggestion with regard to setting the speed. I've added that to v4.76Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 07, 2009, 08:38:41 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Is it possible to have a new order for ships that are equipped with a missile launcher and have Buoys in their magazines:You can do something similar to this already. Once you set up the waypoints, you can use the "Launch Missiles At" order for each waypoint. As it arrives at each waypoint, a ship will fire any missile launchers that have missiles assigned but are not linked to a fire control system. If the ship arrives before the launcher(s) is reloaded, it will hold position until it can fire. This is how I created the minefield in the previous campaign.
Select a WayPoint in the locations list and then have the order 'Deploy Buoy' with a picklist of Buoys on the ship.
That way you can setup a mine field pattern on the system map using waypoints and then queue up the orders for your mine layer. The trick would be in ensuring that the ship receiving the order has a Buoy/Mine and that it also has a launcher capable of launching it.
Steve
Post by: Beersatron on December 07, 2009, 08:46:59 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Beersatron"Is it possible to have a new order for ships that are equipped with a missile launcher and have Buoys in their magazines:You can do something similar to this already. Once you set up the waypoints, you can use the "Launch Missiles At" order for each waypoint. As it arrives at each waypoint, a ship will fire any missile launchers that have missiles assigned but are not linked to a fire control system. If the ship arrives before the launcher(s) is reloaded, it will hold position until it can fire. This is how I created the minefield in the previous campaign.
Select a WayPoint in the locations list and then have the order 'Deploy Buoy' with a picklist of Buoys on the ship.
That way you can setup a mine field pattern on the system map using waypoints and then queue up the orders for your mine layer. The trick would be in ensuring that the ship receiving the order has a Buoy/Mine and that it also has a launcher capable of launching it.
Steve
I thought something like that after I posted, but then I realized that you can not restrict it to dropping just the one Buoy if you have multiple launchers unless you set just the one launcher as loaded.
I guess there isn't much of a full proof way to implementing it in any regard!
Post by: Hawkeye on December 07, 2009, 10:20:48 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"Quote from: "Beersatron"Is it possible to have a new order for ships that are equipped with a missile launcher and have Buoys in their magazines:You can do something similar to this already. Once you set up the waypoints, you can use the "Launch Missiles At" order for each waypoint. As it arrives at each waypoint, a ship will fire any missile launchers that have missiles assigned but are not linked to a fire control system. If the ship arrives before the launcher(s) is reloaded, it will hold position until it can fire. This is how I created the minefield in the previous campaign.
Select a WayPoint in the locations list and then have the order 'Deploy Buoy' with a picklist of Buoys on the ship.
That way you can setup a mine field pattern on the system map using waypoints and then queue up the orders for your mine layer. The trick would be in ensuring that the ship receiving the order has a Buoy/Mine and that it also has a launcher capable of launching it.
Steve
I thought something like that after I posted, but then I realized that you can not restrict it to dropping just the one Buoy if you have multiple launchers unless you set just the one launcher as loaded.
I guess there isn't much of a full proof way to implementing it in any regard!
I did this a few times and run in only one problem. I had a missile cruiser with 10 launchers, but wanted to launch only 5 mines per waypoint. When I accidentaly loaded mines into all launchers (I was _so_ used to "assign all") I had to fly back to base, unload some mines, load regular missiles, load those into 5 of the launchers, then unload the missiles again, load mines again and fly to where I wanted the minefield deployed.
Long story short, I couldn´t find a way to _unlaod_ a missile launcher, once it is loaded, neither in the "individual unit" screen, nor in the "battle control" screen. So, might I suggest the addition of just such a button?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 08, 2009, 03:18:23 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Long story short, I couldn´t find a way to _unload_ a missile launcher, once it is loaded, neither in the "individual unit" screen, nor in the "battle control" screen. So, might I suggest the addition of just such a button?I have added a Clear All button to the Ship window for v4.76
Steve
Post by: waresky on December 08, 2009, 03:32:48 PM
Post by: georgiaboy1966 on December 09, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
Maybe a smaller shipyard, like the small jump gate builder
Post by: Beersatron on December 12, 2009, 04:27:47 PM
Post by: Beersatron on December 12, 2009, 04:38:44 PM
I have had a team on Mars that has an SM added Damaged Installation for 3 years and 7 months but haven't had a peep from them - kind of makes me worried they are not actually doing anything/bugged. My engineering regiments are getting a bit restless!
Post by: Beersatron on December 12, 2009, 08:36:53 PM
Post by: sloanjh on December 12, 2009, 11:29:53 PM
) whether the turns are still running....John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2009, 10:45:48 PM
Quote from: "georgiaboy1966"
Here is a request from the old Starfire guy. How about a mobile shipyard for building pdc's owp's, and for forward ship repair.One of the things I wanted to get away from in Aurora was Starfire's amazing mobile shipyards. With no supporting population or industry they can somehow build capital ships in the middle of nowhere
Maybe a smaller shipyard, like the small jump gate builder
However, you can do some things in Aurora that replicate some of the Starfire abilities. For example, although you can't have "mobile shipyards" in the sense they have their own engines, the shipyards are mobile in the sense that you can move them with a tug. If you create a small colony in a forward area to provide the workforce and you have sufficient minerals, you can tow a shipyard to that planet and use it as a forward base. Also, don't forget your ships can self-repair using damage control. If you provide them with enough maintenance supplies, they can repair just about anything except armour. Repairs require double the maint supplies of preventative maintenance so a ship would need supplies equal to 2x its most expensive system in order to be assured of repairing everything.. Ships in a hangar can use the mothership's maintenance supplies so you could create a ship with a huge hangar and loads of maintenance supplies and use it as a repair bay, bringing ships into the bay to let them repair their own systems. That method gets around the problems suffered by ships with limited maintenance capacities. In fact, I should probably allow ships in hangars to use the mothership's damage control rating so you really could build true repair ships.
EDIT: In v4.8, any ship in a hangar will use the Mothership's damage control rating if it is higher than its own. Ships can already use the Mothership's maintenance supplies in v4.77. As well as allowing carriers to repair their fighters/FACs, this allows the creation of dedicated "Repair Ships" with large hangars, high damage control ratings and lots of maintenance supplies.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2009, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Geological Survey message by my own GEs do not interrupt the increment, but Geological Survey messages from NPRs that share their GE reports do interrupt. Can you set it to not interrupt?Fixed for v4.8
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 14, 2009, 10:54:35 PM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Is it possible to 'persist' planetary contacts on the system map? i.e. if I detect a precursor listening post then have it marked against that system body - maybe give it a date that it was last updated by sensors?I used to retain all sensor contacts but I started encountering performance problems as they built up. Now I just retain active ship contacts for the purposes of the intelligence window. A waypoint is a possibility but it would get left behind. Maybe I could allow players to set labels for planets in the same way as the galactic map. Or you could rename the system body "Here be Dragons" as a short-term measure
Steve
Post by: waresky on December 15, 2009, 04:55:47 AM
Quote
One of the things I wanted to get away from in Aurora was Starfire's amazing mobile shipyards. With no supporting population or industry they can somehow build capital ships in the middle of nowhereTrue.
Aurora are a very near "Space Simulator" than Starfire are a "Arcade Mode On".
Am loving Aurora for that.
Complexity BUT r a player target,and build up a player customizations posture.
U can live simplicity in Aurora or become a Master on Nightmare management
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 15, 2009, 07:13:45 AM
Brian
Post by: IanD on December 15, 2009, 08:27:44 AM
For most systems outside Sol I have 6-8+ mining colonies for each inhabited planet, so the list gets crowded after a few years, plus all the commercial mining colonies. If I want to look at mining colonies in Alpha Centauri I don't necessarily want to look at the ones in Luytens 628. But at the moment to find all the mining colonies for Alpha Centauri I have to scroll through the entire list which is now quite long. Hope you get the gist of my meanderings
Regards
Post by: Beersatron on December 15, 2009, 09:33:06 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "georgiaboy1966"Here is a request from the old Starfire guy. How about a mobile shipyard for building pdc's owp's, and for forward ship repair.One of the things I wanted to get away from in Aurora was Starfire's amazing mobile shipyards. With no supporting population or industry they can somehow build capital ships in the middle of nowhere
Maybe a smaller shipyard, like the small jump gate builder
However, you can do some things in Aurora that replicate some of the Starfire abilities. For example, although you can't have "mobile shipyards" in the sense they have their own engines, the shipyards are mobile in the sense that you can move them with a tug. If you create a small colony in a forward area to provide the workforce and you have sufficient minerals, you can tow a shipyard to that planet and use it as a forward base. Also, don't forget your ships can self-repair using damage control. If you provide them with enough maintenance supplies, they can repair just about anything except armour. Repairs require double the maint supplies of preventative maintenance so a ship would need supplies equal to 2x its most expensive system in order to be assured of repairing everything.. Ships in a hangar can use the mothership's maintenance supplies so you could create a ship with a huge hangar and loads of maintenance supplies and use it as a repair bay, bringing ships into the bay to let them repair their own systems. That method gets around the problems suffered by ships with limited maintenance capacities. In fact, I should probably allow ships in hangars to use the mothership's damage control rating so you really could build true repair ships.
EDIT: In v4.8, any ship in a hangar will use the Mothership's damage control rating if it is higher than its own. Ships can already use the Mothership's maintenance supplies in v4.77. As well as allowing carriers to repair their fighters/FACs, this allows the creation of dedicated "Repair Ships" with large hangars, high damage control ratings and lots of maintenance supplies.
Steve
Does this mean we could built a 10k Ton DD and then say have a 30k Ton Repair Ship that has a 10k Ton hangar (I can't remember the ratio of hangar capacity to hull size) and have the DD dock with the Repair Ship?
Post by: Hawkeye on December 15, 2009, 09:44:21 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
An option on the industry screen to change the order of queued projects, and if possible to move a project that has already started into the que, while moving a project that has not started up to get it started imediately. There are plenty of times that I have several things queued up and then an event occurs that makes me want to change the priority, or stop an already active project for a new project. This would be a great assistance.
Brian
Hm, why not just adjust the allocated industrial capacity of the running projects towards 1% and start a new project for the one you need build NOW?
Another hm, is it possible to set a project to 0% industral capacity?
Just tested it, yes you can.
Post by: sloanjh on December 15, 2009, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "Brian"An option on the industry screen to change the order of queued projects, and if possible to move a project that has already started into the que, while moving a project that has not started up to get it started imediately. There are plenty of times that I have several things queued up and then an event occurs that makes me want to change the priority, or stop an already active project for a new project. This would be a great assistance.
Brian
Hm, why not just adjust the allocated industrial capacity of the running projects towards 1% and start a new project for the one you need build NOW?
Another hm, is it possible to set a project to 0% industral capacity?
Just tested it, yes you can.
This (0%) is the way I've been kludging around the issues Brian brings up. The problem is that you have to get a 5-day break to put the priorities back up to 100%. The other issue is that I've been doing a lot of deleting and re-adding to change orders of queue priorities.
John
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 15, 2009, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Yes their are ways around the issue, it would just be simpler if we didn't have to go to the extent we currently do.
This (0%) is the way I've been kludging around the issues Brian brings up. The problem is that you have to get a 5-day break to put the priorities back up to 100%. The other issue is that I've been doing a lot of deleting and re-adding to change orders of queue priorities.
John
Brian
Post by: Beersatron on December 15, 2009, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "georgiaboy1966"Here is a request from the old Starfire guy. How about a mobile shipyard for building pdc's owp's, and for forward ship repair.One of the things I wanted to get away from in Aurora was Starfire's amazing mobile shipyards. With no supporting population or industry they can somehow build capital ships in the middle of nowhere :)
Maybe a smaller shipyard, like the small jump gate builder
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 15, 2009, 06:17:48 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
An option on the industry screen to change the order of queued projects, and if possible to move a project that has already started into the que, while moving a project that has not started up to get it started imediately. There are plenty of times that I have several things queued up and then an event occurs that makes me want to change the priority, or stop an already active project for a new project. This would be a great assistance.I have added separate queues for each of the different industrial sectors, as well as arrows so you can change the queue order. If you use the Up arrow to move the highest queued item into the active list, it will only work if the queued item has an assigned percentage equal to or less than the available space for that industrial sector (Construction, Ordnance or Fighter). If you move an active down into the queue using the down arrow, it will appear as the top queued item and everything else will move down the queue. Obviously if you are working at 100% you will need to move items from active to queued or reduce the percentages before you can move an item from queued to active. A screenshot is included below.
When space opens up after an item is completed, the program will find the first project in the queue that is small enough to fit and make it an active item.
[attachment=0:on33pddh]Industry2.JPG[/attachment:on33pddh]
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 15, 2009, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Does this mean we could built a 10k Ton DD and then say have a 30k Ton Repair Ship that has a 10k Ton hangar (I can't remember the ratio of hangar capacity to hull size) and have the DD dock with the Repair Ship?Yes, that is the type of thing I had in mind.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 15, 2009, 07:22:25 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I have added separate queues for each of the different industrial sectors, as well as arrows so you can change the queue order. If you use the Up arrow to move the highest queued item into the active list, it will only work if the queued item has an assigned percentage equal to or less than the available space for that industrial sector (Construction, Ordnance or Fighter). If you move an active down into the queue using the down arrow, it will appear as the top queued item and everything else will move down the queue. Obviously if you are working at 100% you will need to move items from active to queued or reduce the percentages before you can move an item from queued to active. A screenshot is included below.That is great, thanks for the quick response.
When space opens up after an item is completed, the program will find the first project in the queue that is small enough to fit and make it an active item.
Steve
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on December 15, 2009, 09:57:53 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I have added separate queues for each of the different industrial sectors, as well as arrows so you can change the queue order. If you use the Up arrow to move the highest queued item into the active list, it will only work if the queued item has an assigned percentage equal to or less than the available space for that industrial sector (Construction, Ordnance or Fighter). If you move an active down into the queue using the down arrow, it will appear as the top queued item and everything else will move down the queue. Obviously if you are working at 100% you will need to move items from active to queued or reduce the percentages before you can move an item from queued to active. A screenshot is included below.
Thanks, Steve - this sounds great!!
John
Post by: Father Tim on December 16, 2009, 12:36:38 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
What about expanding upon maintenance supplies and add in another item called Armor Panels which can be only used by ships that have a hangar bay. Restrict it to repairing only half of the destroyed armor levels, or 1 level if that is all it has.
Would probably have to set it up so there is a different Armor Panel per armor level in the defense tech tree and then check against the armor type used in the design to ensure it fits with the panel.
It would add to the complexity for the end user, but I personally think it would be a nice complexity
I too would love a way to repair armour in the field, but I wouldn't want to track different armour types. I'd rather see different levels of armour produce a different number of armour patches (boxes) per ton of Duranium, with the empire simply always building patches from the best type of armour - though better types should be more expensive (in cash, not minerals). I'd like to see armour repairs on a per-box basis, deepest holes first. If you want to restrict field patching to less than 100% of regular armour, I can live with that.
Post by: ZimRathbone on December 16, 2009, 04:01:21 AM
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "Beersatron"What about expanding upon maintenance supplies and add in another item called Armor Panels which can be only used by ships that have a hangar bay. Restrict it to repairing only half of the destroyed armor levels, or 1 level if that is all it has.
Would probably have to set it up so there is a different Armor Panel per armor level in the defense tech tree and then check against the armor type used in the design to ensure it fits with the panel.
It would add to the complexity for the end user, but I personally think it would be a nice complexity
I too would love a way to repair armour in the field, but I wouldn't want to track different armour types. I'd rather see different levels of armour produce a different number of armour patches (boxes) per ton of Duranium, with the empire simply always building patches from the best type of armour - though better types should be more expensive (in cash, not minerals). I'd like to see armour repairs on a per-box basis, deepest holes first. If you want to restrict field patching to less than 100% of regular armour, I can live with that.
I must admit I dont like this idea much - I prefer the current system where you can fix broken systems, but structural items need to be done in a shipyard. At the moment IIRC the only thing that must be done in a shipyard is the Armour - I don't think there's anything measuring structral integrity (which I would put in the same category), and if Steve ever puts in critical hit effects (like say, steering problems as per HMS Warspite after her being hit at Jutland, and circled in front of the High Seas Fleet) these sorts of things would also take yard time to fix (in fact I think Warspite had steering problems right up until she was scrapped after WW2 - she ran aground on the way to the breakers I believe)
Post by: Paul M on December 16, 2009, 04:03:55 AM
Post by: Randy on December 16, 2009, 02:55:01 PM
eg. project - percent (assume in queue in alphabetical order)
A - 50 B - 10
C - 20 D - 30
E - 10 F - 50
G - 20 H - 10
I - 10 J - 10
Under present (current 4.
model, projects ABCE and H will be getting worked on and the rest will be idle.When project A completes, D will be started along with G. F, I and J will still be sitting there...
What I would like to see instead is ABC started (full rate as specified) along with D (using 20 percent of capacity, leaving 10 more to be assigned to D when available). Then when Project A completes, D will get another 10 points, E will get 10 and F will get 30 (of its 50 max).
This results in the queue being processed in the desired order, just some projects initially working at a slower rate...
Post by: sloanjh on December 16, 2009, 08:48:00 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
What I'd rather see for construction queues is that capacity gets used up to the limit set for a project. Capacity gets assigned in order of projects and the last one gets whatever fraction was left.
eg. project - percent (assume in queue in alphabetical order)
A - 50 B - 10
C - 20 D - 30
E - 10 F - 50
G - 20 H - 10
I - 10 J - 10
Under present (current 4.
When project A completes, D will be started along with G. F, I and J will still be sitting there...
What I would like to see instead is ABC started (full rate as specified) along with D (using 20 percent of capacity, leaving 10 more to be assigned to D when available). Then when Project A completes, D will get another 10 points, E will get 10 and F will get 30 (of its 50 max).
This results in the queue being processed in the desired order, just some projects initially working at a slower rate...
I agree with this 100% - I was just thinking the same thing last night.
John
Post by: Hawkeye on December 17, 2009, 11:16:49 PM
Currently, we can organize ground troops in divisions, that can have up to 4 units assigned (usually brigade HQs) which in turn can have up to 4 units assigned (usually combat bataillons).
Would it be possible to have a similar organisation for fleets, perhaps with no, or at least a larger limit (8+ at least)
Like this
TG 1 consists of
...TG 1.1
......1st BatRon
......1st CruRon
------1st DesRon
......2nd DesRon
...TG 1.2
......2nd BatRon
......3rd BatRon
......2nd CruRon
......3rd CruRon
......4th CruRon
......3rd DesRon
and so on
I can do this now "on paper" i.e. when I set up my fleets, but it would be nice to have the fleets shown in the same form as ground units when organized in divisions in the fleet command screen or in the battle order window.
Post by: boggo2300 on December 18, 2009, 03:57:37 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
TG 1 consists of
...TG 1.1
......1st BatRon
......1st CruRon
------1st DesRon
......2nd DesRon
...TG 1.2
......2nd BatRon
......3rd BatRon
......2nd CruRon
......3rd CruRon
......4th CruRon
......3rd DesRon
Yes!! Ralph has hit it on the head exactly what I was trying to say before (nowhere near as well!)
thos would make organising things much simpler!!
Matt
Post by: boggo2300 on December 18, 2009, 06:57:42 PM
I was thinking along the lines, they could be made by Jump Gate construction ships, possibly make each colony modular, so if you made one, then use your construction ship to double its size.
Obviously no mines, but Industry and research items in them.
as usual from me, only a half finished idea, I was just thinking about my old Jovian Chronicles campaign, and realised the lack of orbital colonies made it impossible in Aurora
Matt
Post by: waresky on December 19, 2009, 04:11:03 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
I want to renew a suggestion waresky (I belive) made re. fleet organization.
Currently, we can organize ground troops in divisions, that can have up to 4 units assigned (usually brigade HQs) which in turn can have up to 4 units assigned (usually combat bataillons).
Would it be possible to have a similar organisation for fleets, perhaps with no, or at least a larger limit (8+ at least)
...cut by Waresky.
Yes,ive been post a same idea.Ty for re-newed it.
In fact,me and Steve are a Traveller's Eldest Addict players..so probably Steve himslef know very well Imperials and Solomani Fleet's organization as above described.
Am love this "smeg"..because render perfectly a "Imperial BattleFleet" idea and "athmosphera (or Drama)" on Space Fleets.
Me too,same as you described,use the writing organization for know where,when how what,are doing a "TASK FORCE",(arrr am hate this term!! srry Steve!!) (FLEET r much feeling for me) with a dozens Squadroons (TASK GROUPS!!! another hatred terms!!)are operative around into Imperiale Space..
Am hope Steve,only for "Traveller breath and Drama" change this 2 terms:DDD..
And make be better a Fleets and Squadroon organisations tabble set.
Ty Steve on anticipation.
EDIT: am copy and PASTE on 4.8 NEW Suggestions post..
please follow new post from now.
TY v much
Post by: alanwebber on December 20, 2009, 03:06:33 AM
Would it be possible to update an NPR race name once communications are established? It seem strange that you can talk to them but still know them on the intelligence screen as Ross 128 aliens for example.
Alan
Post by: sloanjh on December 20, 2009, 02:39:05 PM
1) Introduce an "all leaders" choice in the "Leader Type" pulldown on the left of the "Leaders" screen. This would allow me to see the entire ranked list of e.g. Diplomacy/Xenology/whatever in the filter on the right.
2) On the teams tab of the F2 screen, when you click on a team have the relevant bonus displayed as part of the name of the team members, e.g. "Sam Clemens Rating 30" vice "Sam Clemens" when you click on the "Mark Twain Diplomacy Team [Human] Rating 120" team.
3) I'm pretty sure someone else mentioned the bug on displaying Xenology ratings (they don't appear to on the Leaders screen) - fixing it would help
John
Post by: sloanjh on December 20, 2009, 10:11:43 PM
I was reading some old suggestions threads last night, and found a "what I like about the current release" post from right after FACs came in. Since there's been a lot of good changes with 4.7, I thought I'd do another one.
The first thing that comes to mind are the changes in mineral abundance, i.e. that factories and mines are only 50% duranium, rather than pure. I think this has had a huge positive impact - the shortages I'm seeing are in Neutronium and Mercassium, rather than Duranium, and I haven't been in a mode of having to build overcapacity of mines in order to be able to grow the economy (mines and factories).
The next thing (which is has a higher rating in my mind that the duranium change) is automated turns. These are saving me a HUGE amount of time - they allowed me to burn through the first 10 years of my conventional start MUCH more quickly in people-time than in previous games. It really helps a lot to not have to wait for the turn to end, see there's no event, then push the stupid button again.
I like the research change too, although I'm not sure if the advancement needs to be toned down or is just right. It used to be that one needed to open several new colonies with research labs so that one could work on multiple projects simultaneously. I also used to really crank up the number of academies so that I could get a big enough officer base to get research specialities promoted high enough to be able to be Governors. Now all that stress/micromanagment is gone - scientist come in as scientists right away, you don't have to wait for them to be promoted, and different labs on the same world can work on different projects. One trick I realized about 1/2 way into my empire is to "farm" scientists by giving them 1-lab projects to work on - this allows their bonuses to grow. I don't this this is something that needs to be fixed (it makes sense to train promising leaders with small projects), but it seems like the administrative ceiling might be growing too high. I've only got ~35 labs (conventional start), but I've probably got 15 scientists and most of them can handle at least 20 labs. Maybe if administrative ceiling advancement had an additional probability hit proportional to the number of labs assigned to that scientist compared to that scientist's max....
I've already logged some bugs on the science interface.
I'm so-so on the industrial screen. It was nice to be able to swing my production around to 10% missiles on a dime, but it feels a little unrealistic. You're putting ordnance factories back in anyway, so no big deal. I found the %-this; %-that interface to be more cumbersome (read micromanagement attention needed) than just shoving things in the queue, but that might just be that I'm not yet using it correctly.
I haven't hit aliens enough to know if the yoyo/interrupt issues that forced me out of my last game are still there, but so far all signs are positive. The game-start NPR has fought several (3-6?) battles with precursors where there were long stretches of 5-second increments, and the game seemed to work its way through them all with automated turns on. This is great, since it seems like the issue that made the game unplayable for me is well on its way to being fixed. I also suspect NPR AI is a lot better - I was surprised when I peeked at it during the first battle with precursors to see how many systems the NPR had explored. I just discovered one of the NPR construction ships in a system adjacent to my homeworld (I think there's an NPR glitch there - the construction ship was just sitting there even though there was already a jump gate, plus it wasn't building a jump gate into Sol) - I assume that's because the NPR has been doing a lot of exploring. One weird thing - the NPR doesn't seem to have activated any other NPRs, even though it had probably explored a dozen systems when last I looked many years ago.
I really like the division/brigade structure introduced to the ground units - I think it appeals to the OCD in me :-)
John
Post by: sloanjh on December 21, 2009, 10:54:22 PM
John
Post by: boggo2300 on December 22, 2009, 12:00:29 AM
Something thats come up from my current exploration doctrine, could we have an order (on the tg orders screen) to launch parasites? and the ability to give an order to a ship thats gone through an unex wp, if you just give the other end of the wp as a location in the new system before entance, I could give deployment orders to my fleet.
Matt
Post by: lastverb on December 22, 2009, 04:52:15 AM
Post by: Kurt on December 22, 2009, 07:54:25 AM
Quote from: "alanwebber"
Steve
Would it be possible to update an NPR race name once communications are established? It seem strange that you can talk to them but still know them on the intelligence screen as Ross 128 aliens for example.
Alan
Race name, and maybe some details, like government, and whether they like your race with rice or a la carte?
Kurt
Post by: sloanjh on December 22, 2009, 08:36:30 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "alanwebber"Steve
Would it be possible to update an NPR race name once communications are established? It seem strange that you can talk to them but still know them on the intelligence screen as Ross 128 aliens for example.
Alan
Race name, and maybe some details, like government, and whether they like your race with rice or a la carte?
Kurt
Hmmmm - maybe one of the civilian trade goods should be toothpicks....
John
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 30, 2009, 03:59:55 PM
Could you make the capaciter size for weapons in the design screen be any number between .1 to 1 (for reduced size lasers) and then 1-25, with the high end being capped by the currently available capaciter tech. It has been an ongoing irritant for a while, I just never got around to posting it.
Brian
(P.S.) I just noticed that the different names for the torpedo's are not being replicated on the name of the designed tech. If you use the default setting, they are all particle torpedo(?) with the number indicating the generation. I liked the way it was before with the different names for the different size torpedo's.
Thanks for all of your hard work. Merry Christmass, and don't let the crash get you down, you seem to put in lots of comments on your code, so it shouldn't be as hard as it could be.
Brian
Post by: Kurt on December 31, 2009, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: "Brian"
Steve, a number of weapons use power in increments that do not match the capaciter types available. For instance the torpedo weapons tend to go up by one point and the capaciter is going up by 2 points (from 5 to 6 to 7 power) Meanwhile Capaciters are fixed at size of 6 or 8. This ends up requiring more power for a weapon. While not a problem when there is only a couple of them on a ship, I recently made a battleship with twenty torpedo's This ended up requiring 20 more power than it should have.
Could you make the capaciter size for weapons in the design screen be any number between .1 to 1 (for reduced size lasers) and then 1-25, with the high end being capped by the currently available capaciter tech. It has been an ongoing irritant for a while, I just never got around to posting it.
Brian
(P.S.) I just noticed that the different names for the torpedo's are not being replicated on the name of the designed tech. If you use the default setting, they are all particle torpedo(?) with the number indicating the generation. I liked the way it was before with the different names for the different size torpedo's.
Thanks for all of your hard work. Merry Christmass, and don't let the crash get you down, you seem to put in lots of comments on your code, so it shouldn't be as hard as it could be.
Brian
Steve -
This is on kind of a related note, hence the quote above. I have noticed that quite often I can't get my generators to generate the amount of power I need because of the granularity in the system. Often they end up with an odd generated amount compared to demand, and I end up having to install an extra generator that I only need one or two points from.
This is a minor annoyance at worst, but in reading the above message I realized that this could be solved the same way you solved earlier missile design issues. Instead of having the player input the generator size and have Aurora determine the amount of power to be generated from that, why don't you turn it around and have the player specify the amount of power he wants, and Aurora then determines the resulting size of the generator based on the technology being used.
It sounds like an easy change to make to me, but then, a lot of the ones that end up requiring major changes to the programming did too, so you'll have to be the judge of that <G>.
Kurt
PS: I just saw the torpedo issue mentioned above myself.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 01, 2010, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
Steve, a number of weapons use power in increments that do not match the capaciter types available. For instance the torpedo weapons tend to go up by one point and the capaciter is going up by 2 points (from 5 to 6 to 7 power) Meanwhile Capaciters are fixed at size of 6 or 8. This ends up requiring more power for a weapon. While not a problem when there is only a couple of them on a ship, I recently made a battleship with twenty torpedo's This ended up requiring 20 more power than it should have.I am planning to completely revise the design window at some point so I will include this change. I am also wondering whether to build reactors directly into beam weapons so they generate power for that weapon and you don't have to build separate reactors. This would solve two problems. Firstly, reactors seem to present a problem for new players who have no way of knowing how much power they need. Secondly, if you have exactly the right numbers of reactors for your beam weapons then losing one can increase the arming time for all your weapons. While this might be realistic in one sense, in reality you would probably choose to arm one weapon more slowly rather than all of them and that is too much micromanagement for Aurora. I could also fix the capacitor issue above in the same beam weapon redesign.
Could you make the capaciter size for weapons in the design screen be any number between .1 to 1 (for reduced size lasers) and then 1-25, with the high end being capped by the currently available capaciter tech. It has been an ongoing irritant for a while, I just never got around to posting it.
Quote
(P.S.) I just noticed that the different names for the torpedo's are not being replicated on the name of the designed tech. If you use the default setting, they are all particle torpedo(?) with the number indicating the generation. I liked the way it was before with the different names for the different size torpedo's.I am planning to introduce a couple of new torpedo types in a future version so I am clearing the decks by renaming the existing torpedoes to Particle. The database is already updated for the Particle Torpedo names and I had forgotten the code would use the new name before v4.8
Quote
Thanks for all of your hard work. Merry Christmass, and don't let the crash get you down, you seem to put in lots of comments on your code, so it shouldn't be as hard as it could be.It's remembering what I changed in the DB that is the issue. I keep encountering errors and then realise there is something else I forgot about
. It should work itself out eventually though.Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 01, 2010, 06:28:06 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
This is on kind of a related note, hence the quote above. I have noticed that quite often I can't get my generators to generate the amount of power I need because of the granularity in the system. Often they end up with an odd generated amount compared to demand, and I end up having to install an extra generator that I only need one or two points from.I answered the previous post before reading this one
This is a minor annoyance at worst, but in reading the above message I realized that this could be solved the same way you solved earlier missile design issues. Instead of having the player input the generator size and have Aurora determine the amount of power to be generated from that, why don't you turn it around and have the player specify the amount of power he wants, and Aurora then determines the resulting size of the generator based on the technology being used.
It sounds like an easy change to make to me, but then, a lot of the ones that end up requiring major changes to the programming did too, so you'll have to be the judge of that <G>.
The change to beam weapon design I am considering would fix this issue completely as the program would build exactly the right size reactor directly into the beam weapon.
Steve
Post by: Andrew on January 01, 2010, 06:21:59 PM
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 01, 2010, 09:43:17 PM
Quote from: "Andrew"
A marker for wrecks would be really useful particularly because salvage ships if they are commercial designs do not carry active sensors and so cannot find wrecks for themselves. Also it turns out solar systems are so big it is really hard to find a wreck from a few years ago as all the planets moveActually civilian designes can have active and passive sensors. The limit is one hull space per installation. For a salvage ship, you are probably not going to be sending them out for small ships, so using a large resolution will actually give you a fairly good search radius. You are correct however as to the effect of orbital movement. I seem to recall that this applies to wrecks as well as to the planets. Having a marker for where the wrecks are that corrects for orbital drift would be excellent.
Brian
Post by: Andrew on January 02, 2010, 04:26:19 AM
Quote from: "Brian"
I knew about the passive sensors but as I have never bothered with 1hs actives I had not spotted commercial ships could carry themQuote from: "Andrew"A marker for wrecks would be really useful particularly because salvage ships if they are commercial designs do not carry active sensors and so cannot find wrecks for themselves. Also it turns out solar systems are so big it is really hard to find a wreck from a few years ago as all the planets moveActually civilian designes can have active and passive sensors. The limit is one hull space per installation. For a salvage ship, you are probably not going to be sending them out for small ships, so using a large resolution will actually give you a fairly good search radius. You are correct however as to the effect of orbital movement. I seem to recall that this applies to wrecks as well as to the planets. Having a marker for where the wrecks are that corrects for orbital drift would be excellent.
Brian
Post by: waresky on January 02, 2010, 05:05:06 AM
Quote
I am planning to completely revise the design window at some point so I will include this change. I am also wondering whether to build reactors directly into beam weapons so they generate power for that weapon and you don't have to build separate reactors. This would solve two problems. Firstly, reactors seem to present a problem for new players who have no way of knowing how much power they need. Secondly, if you have exactly the right numbers of reactors for your beam weapons then losing one can increase the arming time for all your weapons. While this might be realistic in one sense, in reality you would probably choose to arm one weapon more slowly rather than all of them and that is too much micromanagement for Aurora. I could also fix the capacitor issue above in the same beam weapon redesign.
Greatest new.
Am hope,Steve,u planning some..NPR's Advance Time revises systems.
When NPR got combat,the slowly advance time..are..srry: very BORING.
i cant know how hard r ur designers work for this situation..but sincerely hope something can be changed.
See ya Steve.
Post by: backstab on January 03, 2010, 03:15:08 PM
When are we going to see 4.8 ?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 03, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: "backstab"
Steve,Not too long I hope. There aren't too many changes, mainly ordnance/fighter factories, drones and something new to fight
When are we going to see 4.8 ?
I have been concentrating on the tutorial during the last few days though so I haven't done any playtesting yet. I need to run a short campaign just to make sure there are no major issues.
Steve
Post by: backstab on January 03, 2010, 07:38:16 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "backstab"Steve,Not too long I hope. There aren't too many changes, mainly ordnance/fighter factories, drones and something new to fight
When are we going to see 4.8 ?
I have been concentrating on the tutorial during the last few days though so I haven't done any playtesting yet. I need to run a short campaign just to make sure there are no major issues.
Steve
No probs ... I can wait, this will give me time to work on my background for the next game (16 Pages of history so far) ....
[attachment=0:322jc993]AltWorld 2.0.PNG[/attachment:322jc993]
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 04, 2010, 05:25:00 AM
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on January 04, 2010, 10:58:22 PM
Filter the choices in the MSP Allocation of Previous Designs pulldown (upper left) by the Missile Series selection (mid right) or allow double-click on a missile in the Missile Series panel (mid-right) to set the MSP Allocation of Previous Designs choice.
I've forgotten the difference in my Sparrow Mk 1 and Sparrow Mk 2 anti-missiles. I had the clever idea to simply pull them up on the design screen. I can pull the series up fine on the right, but the only way to select missiles in the series is through the pulldown on the left, which is cluttered by all my other missile designs. At this point I'm ok, since I don't have a lot of designs, but in the future I can see it being a problem, especially since the pulldown choices don't seem to be ordered alphabetically.
[EDIT]
DOH!! I just realized this doesn't work anyway, since the window only brings up the points, not the actual characteristics (using outdated tech) of the missiles. I found what I was looking for in the tech report (ctrl-F7) window.
Alternate suggestion: Allow filtering out of obsolete tech in the MSP Allocation of Previous Designs pulldown - I still think that noise in the list is going to be a problem from outdated types.
John
Post by: Kurt on January 06, 2010, 10:07:35 AM
I've got a fairly minor suggestion, but it is something that has come up several times during my recent efforts to move the campaign forward. Basically, on the Task Group screen, I'd really like for you to exclude carried ships (gunboats and fighters) from the "equalize" commands. Every time I give an "equalize fuel" order I end up with my gunboats at 77% (or whatever). That is a significant percentage of their entire operating time, and taking fuel away from a unit that has an operating time measured in hours or days, to give to a ship that has operating times measured in months, doesn't make sense.
Thanks -
Kurt
Post by: Brian Neumann on January 06, 2010, 02:59:45 PM
Brian
Post by: waresky on January 10, 2010, 11:06:27 AM
If we got an "COlony" nearest Saturn (Enceladus i.e.) the idiot's commander of mine discharge up this puny "colony"..
d'ont make sense
Post by: Elmo on January 11, 2010, 08:32:18 AM
Post by: Hawkeye on January 11, 2010, 10:03:20 AM
Quote from: "Elmo"
This might be on the list already but can the Event Updates screen be made available directly from the Empires drop down? Right now I think you have to bring up the System Map first. Not a big deal but I thought it would make sense to have it available directly since at least one veteran here recommend playing with it open all the time.
It´s in the SpaceMaster dropdown menue
Post by: Elmo on January 11, 2010, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
It´s in the SpaceMaster dropdown menue
I see it now. Thanks.
Post by: sloanjh on January 11, 2010, 08:14:52 PM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "Elmo"This might be on the list already but can the Event Updates screen be made available directly from the Empires drop down? Right now I think you have to bring up the System Map first. Not a big deal but I thought it would make sense to have it available directly since at least one veteran here recommend playing with it open all the time.
It´s in the SpaceMaster dropdown menue
Or ctrl-F3.
I always hit ctrl-F3(Events), F2 (Population & Production), F3 (System Map), and F12 (Task Groups) when I start Aurora.
John
Post by: Erik L on January 12, 2010, 03:47:56 PM
Post by: Erik L on January 12, 2010, 03:51:09 PM
Post by: Erik L on January 12, 2010, 04:01:13 PM
As an adjunct, the option to maintain a certain level, i.e. 50,000,000 litres of fuel. If it drops below that, the refineries get turned on, and build up to that, then shut down.
Post by: ShadoCat on January 12, 2010, 04:18:10 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
A "command" for military officers, "Reserve". Would allow us to keep officers that we have no slot for without them being RIF'd out. Of course, they'd still age, die, etc. just not get surplussed.
What he said.
Post by: ShadoCat on January 12, 2010, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
A way to scrap PDCs.
Ditto.
Post by: sloanjh on January 12, 2010, 07:50:14 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
A "command" for military officers, "Reserve". Would allow us to keep officers that we have no slot for without them being RIF'd out. Of course, they'd still age, die, etc. just not get surplussed.
Seconded. Or even a checkbox on the startup screen to turn off "up or out" (which Erik called RIF-ing) while still using realistic promotions.
John
Post by: sloanjh on January 12, 2010, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
For fuel, the option to instruct it to build to a certain level, then cease.
As an adjunct, the option to maintain a certain level, i.e. 50,000,000 litres of fuel. If it drops below that, the refineries get turned on, and build up to that, then shut down.
My first reaction was "Oooooh - that's a neat idea".
My second reaction was "Actually, my big problem is not having a good way of spotting trends in my fuel stocks (i.e. going up or going down)". So I'd still like something that tracked fuel in the same way wealth is tracked - maybe adding up fuel production from all sorium refineries and fuel factories every 5-day and logging it in the database, so production for month, 3-month, and year could be tracked. The other thing to log (that wold be easy) would be total planetary fuel stock at the end of the same 5-day (after production). What would really be nice for this would be to have an amount-vs-t plot (of fuel every 5-day vs date, kind of like stock histories) so that we could use our eyes to pick out trends that might be hidden by the week-to-week jitters of refueling and construction.
John
Post by: Erik L on January 12, 2010, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"A "command" for military officers, "Reserve". Would allow us to keep officers that we have no slot for without them being RIF'd out. Of course, they'd still age, die, etc. just not get surplussed.
Seconded. Or even a checkbox on the startup screen to turn off "up or out" (which Erik called RIF-ing) while still using realistic promotions.
John
I don't mind either a global or individual check. I think an individual one would be better, just because there are some that are not worth saving
Post by: sloanjh on January 12, 2010, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "sloanjh"Quote from: "Erik Luken"A "command" for military officers, "Reserve". Would allow us to keep officers that we have no slot for without them being RIF'd out. Of course, they'd still age, die, etc. just not get surplussed.
Seconded. Or even a checkbox on the startup screen to turn off "up or out" (which Erik called RIF-ing) while still using realistic promotions.
John
I don't mind either a global or individual check. I think an individual one would be better, just because there are some that are not worth saving :-) ).
2) Allow Army officers to fill Naval staff positions such as Intel, and PR. This would emulate the current drive (at least in the US) towards "jointness"
3) Introduce Army staffs, either at the Division or Corps level. Note that this suggestion is more based on symmetry than that I actually think it's a good idea - Aurora is fundamentally a snaval game and introducing the same complexity on the ground side is probably not worth the effort.
John
Post by: Erik L on January 13, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
Personally, I'd like the name selection routine to randomly pick a name from the theme list, and mark it used when the ship is locked.
This would prevent the names from being consumed with repeated use of the "auto-name" button.
Post by: boggo2300 on January 14, 2010, 12:48:00 AM
Matt
Post by: lastverb on January 14, 2010, 01:46:33 AM
Post by: boggo2300 on January 14, 2010, 02:45:56 AM
Quote from: "lastverb"
there is del colony button on bottom right of economics window, it deletes colony with everything on it (minerals, installations, shipyards, stockpiles (excluding fighters))
Excellent, thanks, didn't spot it cos i don't play in SM, deleted and happy
Matt
Post by: lastverb on January 14, 2010, 05:18:11 AM
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Excellent, thanks, didn't spot it cos i don't play in SM, deleted and happywell u dont need sm mode for this button
Matt
Post by: waresky on January 14, 2010, 08:49:42 AM
Post by: Drakale on January 14, 2010, 09:55:50 AM
The one thing that I see as a problem is that a variation on a known design would cost just as much research as the original. Maybe there could be a "Use this design as a base" option that let you edit the design up to a RP limit(based on a fraction of the original RP cost). The new design total RP cost would just factor the new components + a fraction of the original RP cost.
example:(Assuming 30% limit on RP upgrade and 10% fraction base cost)
Valhalla class troop transport MK1, a new design, was designed and then researched for 300 RP
some year later, the troop transport need more space and some upgraded point defense so the MK2 concept is created from the original MK1.
The RP limit is 30%*300, so a maximum of 90 RP can be spent on the upgrade.
It is based on the MK1 so the cost for the new design is a base 10% x 300RP for the original concept+ the new component worth 50 RP
So for a cheap research cost of 80 RP the upgraded design can be retooled and then built at a shipyard...
Sorry if this was already discussed, I might have missed it...
Post by: waresky on January 14, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Compliment for this interesting idea!
Raise hand!
Steve?:D
Post by: boggo2300 on January 14, 2010, 01:36:03 PM
Quote from: "lastverb"
Hmm so you don't, weird, I looked, then went into sm and looked again, only then did I see itQuote from: "boggo2300"Excellent, thanks, didn't spot it cos i don't play in SM, deleted and happywell u dont need sm mode for this button
Matt
Must've been my expectations overiding my observations
Matt
Post by: sloanjh on January 14, 2010, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: "Drakale"
Is there any reason the ship designs are not researched the same way the missile design are? It would solve a lot of weird behavior associated with modifying a ship design while it is still in service... It also mean the design decision are more meaningful as they cannot be instantly modified.
I believe that this is encompassed in the retooling costs, which grow bigger the larger the change you make in terms of design cost. In other words, my understanding is that part of the cost of retooling is in the R&D of working out the kinks in the design. Before retooling, it was as you said - a ship could be designed and construction upon it started in zero game time. My recollection is that the reason Steve put retooling in was precisely to address your concerns - that it was too easy (quick) to begin production on a new design. You might try looking/searching in the Mechanics board for the retooling shipyards discussion (it might be jumbled up with the slipways discussion) if you're interested in reading about the debate - not sure if the discussion was before or after our most recent loss-of-old-posts.
I'd also like to reiterate that modifying a ship design while it's in service is not playing the game as it's intended to be played (i.e. locking designs before retooling/building and not changing locked designs). If you play as intended, then a new ship design cannot be instantly be put into production - in fact it can often take a year or more simply to get the SY retooled. For example, I just designed a large civie freighter (10 holds, 80kton). Simply retooling the SY is going to take me more than a year of game time. After that, I suspect that the first ship will take a year or two to construct (assuming that I don't prefab some civie engines with my industry). So it can take several years to get the lead ship in a new class of freighter built. And once the retool is started I'm stuck with it - if I realize I made a design error I need to wait for the retool for finish, then launch another retool to get to the design I want (as long as I play the game as intended).
John
Post by: Drakale on January 14, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
I believe the game should at least enforce the locking mechanic before allowing retooling, with no way to unlock. Its not just a cheat, its also very confusing for a starting player that have no way to know a design change will propagate this way. But this must already have been suggested of course heh.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 15, 2010, 11:27:41 AM
Quote from: "waresky"
Steve..can u change "delete colony" key cosmetics?..ADANDON r more realistic and feelingGood idea and easy to do
Changed for v4.81Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 15, 2010, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: "Drakale"
Yeah, that makes sense John, I guess I should learn some restraint and stop making some easy upgrades by bypassing the retool process...In v4.81, starting the retooling process will lock the selected design. It can still be unlocked but only in SM Mode.
I believe the game should at least enforce the locking mechanic before allowing retooling, with no way to unlock. Its not just a cheat, its also very confusing for a starting player that have no way to know a design change will propagate this way. But this must already have been suggested of course heh.
Steve