Author Topic: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 28997 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1201
  • Thanked: 13 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2013, 06:19:08 AM »
As I pointed out in the bug thread the current laser "fluff" decription is wrong.  IR lasers are longer wavelength than UV lasers.

As a suggestion I would change the way the range and power increase is implemented.  Larger focal systems would increase laser range, while higher frequency lasers would do more damage.  I don't actually think there is any correlation between laser energy and the frequency in reality but for pulse packages likely you can pack more photons of a shorter wavelength in the same time so you up the energy in each pulse.
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2013, 06:28:23 AM »
Or even skip hyperdrives and allow people SM in LPs. Either by just adding an LP to the largest body orbiting a star or by adding an additional system body.

You could possibly negate most of the need for manual LP adding and hyperdrives by making the systems 2nd 3rd and 4th stars create their own LP transit points. In a ridiculously large system the main outlier stars LP would be unusable but a star orbiting it would have a decent LP to use
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1110
  • Thanked: 35 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2013, 08:42:10 AM »
* Put Crew Quarters in their own category in ship design.
or
*Sort Engineering Quarters above Crew Quarters

It gets really annoying when removing Engineering Spaces, because the design panel keeps adding and removing Small and Tiny crew quarters - so engineering spaces keeps shifting around in the Components list.
 

Offline ArchRylen

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2013, 11:43:37 AM »
Ribbons (bulk assigned medals)

I would like to flag officers and ships that participated in various activities.  For instance, I would like to decorate the folks who helped investigate and drive off precursors from an archeological site.  Or recognize the command and crew of my terraforming vessels for successfully completing an assignment.  I can hunt through each ship, find the appropriate officer, and then make an award.  But I'd like something easier.

The Naval Org tab on the Task Group Orders seems like a good place to put a button allowing me to award a medal to every member of a TG.
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2013, 08:10:24 PM »
I would like to suggest having a list filter in the ship design screen, next to the race filter, to split the list of ships into military, fighters, missiles, PDCs, civilian(crown), civilian(private), and replace the show civilian design tickbox to show foreign designs.

I would also like:

-Something similar to planetary defence centres, but not armoured like a nuclear bomb shelter. These could be built by a construction brigade out of dirt, snow or rock found in the area, with a few resources for components. Another possible feature is to have them be similar to a fortress network (like the Atlantic Wall or Maginot Line) facing an enemy, which could be expanded upon as you add more 'components' to said network.

-Components for said construction, such as airfields and hangars(cheap, cheap space for fighters), ammo dumps (cheap space for munitions, but stored like cargo), casemates (weapon positions similar to turrets on ships, but cheaper) OP/FOB/Fort (fortified fighting positions to increase the defence against land assaults), bunkers (to house and protect ground units from bombing), etc.

-The ability to classify a planet as an outpost, which would limit the total population to a small size.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1110
  • Thanked: 35 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2013, 05:06:58 AM »
+1 for outposts

Quote
I would like to suggest having a list filter in the ship design screen, next to the race filter, to split the list of ships into military, fighters, missiles, PDCs, civilian(crown), civilian(private), and replace the show civilian design tickbox to show foreign designs.
you can sort by hull type and size.

sometimes I also use a naming scheme wherein all civilian designs start with a numeric designator such as X100 or Y250.  this sorts them to the end of the list. I use Z for PDCs.
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2013, 06:52:21 AM »
-The ability to classify a planet as an outpost, which would limit the total population to a small size.

I second this.  Sometimes you just don't want/need 25m population on a system body.  Especially far outlying colonies with high colony costs.  Your civilian fleet ends up expending ridiculous resources trying to build and populate something that you only maintain for strategic value.  A couple extra check boxes to limit growth to hard coded options or even an entry field that specifies population limits for the civs in the same place where you can currently disable after 25m.  It sure would add a unique RP element for me when I check on an extreme outlying outpost that has a population of 750.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1110
  • Thanked: 35 times
  • Dance Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2013, 11:04:09 AM »
*Ground unit theme names.

I would love to able to set default names for ground units. IE if I train up 5 Mobile Infantry, it might name them Security Company or Feudal Levy or Response Team or Armored Raiders.  It's kind of a  pain to rename them one by one, too much to bother with, especially in a multi faction game.

 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2013, 02:55:47 PM »
*Ground unit theme names.

I would love to able to set default names for ground units. IE if I train up 5 Mobile Infantry, it might name them Security Company or Feudal Levy or Response Team or Armored Raiders.  It's kind of a  pain to rename them one by one, too much to bother with, especially in a multi faction game.



This would be Very nice! especially for those pesky multi-faction start games with actual Earth size populations!

Matt
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Jackal Cry

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2013, 01:20:16 AM »
1) All time interrupt events should show up in the System Map when you have Show Events turned on.  Currently, no message is shown there when a Task Group receives a conditional order to refuel.  Presumably it also occurs with other conditional orders.  This should show up in the System Map wit the Task Group receiving the order, and the order given.

2) I wish I didn't constantly get Unrest Increasing and Unrest Decreasing messages.  I have two colonies with some infrastructure and one ground unit each.  I get Unrest Increasing messages constantly due to overpopulation and a low population protection factor.  Each message is followed or preceded by an Unrest Decreasing message saying my ground unit decreased the unrest to zero.  I wish the two messages somehow canceled out so that neither appeared.  At least, I wish they didn't appear in the System Map with Show Events turned on.

Where do I see a colony's unrest level, anyway?
 

Offline Nightstar

  • Triumvirate of Venus
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 263
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2013, 03:26:12 PM »
Quote
Anyway, back to the main topic: I'd like a task for shipyards that auto-builds slipways, in a similar way to continual capacity expansion. Constantly expanding my FAC SYs gets annoying.

EDIT: For the same reasons, I'd like an auto construct ship option.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 04:42:08 PM by Nightstar »
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 224
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2013, 02:31:33 AM »
Once the fighter combat bonus bug is sorted out, it might be interesting to have said bonus help the fighter dodge hostile missiles.
 

Offline Zatsuza

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2013, 10:48:39 AM »
Planet busters, Nova bombs and Quantum Singularity Manipulation-- those are all in the far future methinks :P

Personally I'd love to be able to create a commercial PDC so I can station it at a gas giant and use it as a refueling station. 
Give it an orbital habitat, a recreation module and a few sorium harvesters and boom, fleet refueling base. . . 
 

Offline Brian

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1212
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2013, 06:34:20 AM »
This suggestion came from the thread about fixing missile damage and the amm spam attack tactic.

How about a hybrid of the current ablative system, and the system it replaced many versions ago.  The old system was each level of armor prevented 1 point of damage from each hit.  So with two points of armor a missile doing 1 point of damage was effectivly doing nothing.  The same hit with a base damage of 3 would be getting 1 internal damage point.  The armor was not changed as the ship took hits.  Steve later changed to the ablative armor and multiplied how much armor was recieved for a given tonnage by 4.  What would the effect of having every 4 points of the current armor depth stop 1 point of incomming damage?

For example a ship is hit with multiple strength 4 hits and has 4 points of armor.  Currently each hit would leave a crater 3 wide with only the center being 2 deep in the armor.  A couple of hits in the same place and the armor is breached.  With the system I am proposing the 1st hit on any column would only do three points of damage and would not penetrate to a deeper level of armor.  It would however reduce the damage reduction to zero so the next hit in the same place would do more damage.  I would take 3 hits in the same position for any internals.  Compared to the old style where after two hits the armor was breached and waiting for any addidtional damage to be internal. 

If you increased the armor to 5 depth then the first two hits on the same place would be weakened and the rest would work the same as the previous example.  In both cases the ships would be immune to 1 point hits untill some other source of damage had put some craters in the starting armor. 

Some consequences that come to mind are that non square warhead sizes would become more important.  With the examples above a 5 point warhead would have double the penetration of a 4 point warhead.  I could also see a 6 point warhead being fairly usefull for the same reason against heavier armors (8 - 11 points of armor depth.)  This would be less of a point for really big missiles as they have the room for a bit larger warhead, but for the missiles people usually use (size 4-6) it could have a major impact on missile design. 
The change would also make long range beam combat more interesting as weapons doing minimal damage at their extreme end would not be hurting a ships armor.  Larger slow firing weapons that do lots of damage even at max range would have an advantage, as would particle beams with their fixed damage at all ranges.

Small 1 point damage weapons would still have a purpose however in taking down a targets shields.  Small 1 point damage missiles could also be used to help saturate enemy point defense and take down the shields so the heavier missiles that follow could get in close and have a chance to inflict damage.  If they inflict enough damage then the small missiles could finish off a target. 

The one major question I would have is if this would be to hard to code in.  Each shot would need to compare the damage being done to the amount of armor remaining in the specific column being hit.  This might add to much processor time to be worthwhile.

Brian
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 751
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2013, 05:38:09 AM »
This suggestion came from the thread about fixing missile damage and the amm spam attack tactic.

How about a hybrid of the current ablative system, and the system it replaced many versions ago.  The old system was each level of armor prevented 1 point of damage from each hit.  So with two points of armor a missile doing 1 point of damage was effectivly doing nothing.  The same hit with a base damage of 3 would be getting 1 internal damage point.  The armor was not changed as the ship took hits.

...

The one major question I would have is if this would be to hard to code in.  Each shot would need to compare the damage being done to the amount of armor remaining in the specific column being hit.  This might add to much processor time to be worthwhile.

Brian
I agree that giving some damage resistance is the way to go Brian, but there are several ways to do it.

Other hybrid armor systems that might work is to introduce a multiplier (Aurora seems to love those) and/or armor types.

A multiplyer could work by adding a techline providing armor "hardening" using the same values that fuelconsumtion multiplier use (start at 1.0 and go down towards 0.1).

What this basically would do is reduce incomming damage by n where n is a specified design choise in a dropdown during ship design. The multiplier would work by multiplying armor weight and n.

Let's say you want armor hardening level 3 to reduce all incomming damage by 3, you first need at least 3 levels of normal armor (one per hardness). Added to your armorweight is then the weight multiplied by 3.0 (level 3 hardening * 1.0 base tech efficiency). If needed for balance purposes this multiplier could ofcourse be changed to a bigger value.

The result is that armor design becomes a choice between hardness and thickness, having both while more effective due to synergy quickly becomes prohibitly heavy. The beauty of the system is that most ships will be able to afford a hardness level 1 negating AAM spam, or at least forcing heavier payloads on AAMs.

The other solution would be to use different armor/damage types. Keep the basic armor mechanic but add a few different damage types, for example explosive (missiles), energy (beam) and kinetic (rail/gauss gun). Each type gets a corresponing new armor tech line and every level of research reduce damage by one, but the trick is that you can only choose one resistance type when designing your ship. Most today would choose explosive resistance due to the abundance of missiles, and there we have it, a simple system where small missiles are punished.

Once armor is gone however we seem to agree that no resistance should apply and even 1dmg weapons work at full effect.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 06:08:37 AM by alex_brunius »
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51