Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Mechanics => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on June 06, 2020, 07:32:16 AM
-
Thread for discussion of changes announced for v1.12. Please do not post bug reports or unrelated suggestions in this thread.
-
Uhhhh... Earth death spiral scenario using a 0.03 AU speed AND with conventional start.
So evil. I like it....
Set starting pop to 7.5 billions for increased sadism. How many can you save?
EDIT: oh, of course you MUST roleplay it. You must actively try to save as many as possible, not just use the 7.5 billions pop to accrue wealth and minmax research.
-
Earth death spiral sounds amazing. I haven't tried any of the disaster scenarios yet, but really makes me want to give it a go.
-
Does the death spiral affects Venus and Mercury? Earth will cross their orbit eventually.
-
Uhhhh... Earth death spiral scenario using a 0.03 AU speed AND with conventional start.
So evil. I like it....
Set starting pop to 7.5 billions for increased sadism. How many can you save?
EDIT: oh, of course you MUST roleplay it. You must actively try to save as many as possible, not just use the 7.5 billions pop to accrue wealth and minmax research.
I'm about to start a new conventional campaign where an asteroid impact knocks the Earth out of orbit, kills two billion and creates a huge amount of dust, plus I am going to use 25% research speed. Should be interesting :)
-
Does the death spiral affects Venus and Mercury? Earth will cross their orbit eventually.
No, they are unaffected.
-
Death spiral sounds like an oddly specific disaster scenario, although one that would fit a Exodus from Earth scenario. Wondering when we can make disaster scenarios for different planets and stars other than Earth and Sol.
-
I'm about to start a new conventional campaign where an asteroid impact knocks the Earth out of orbit, kills two billion and creates a huge amount of dust, plus I am going to use 25% research speed. Should be interesting :)
So does that mean it's possible to SM modify a body's dust and radiation levels again?
-
Death spiral sounds like an oddly specific disaster scenario, although one that would fit a Exodus from Earth scenario. Wondering when we can make disaster scenarios for different planets and stars other than Earth and Sol.
Aurora is coded to allow that. I just haven't added the UI to set it up yet.
-
Oh, interesting. In the most absurd case it could be fun to have an entire system death spiraling, as the sun gobbles everything up. Could even turn it into a black hole system when it's empty, once those are re-implemented ;D
-
Is say 0.03 AU (so 4.5 millions km) the distance reduction of the orbit? So earth explodes in 49 years (once she reaches 1 million distance). Must be an inferno well before though.
-
Is say 0.03 AU (so 4.5 millions km) the distance reduction of the orbit? So earth explodes in 49 years (once she reaches 1 million distance). Must be an inferno well before though.
33 years for the 0.03 scenario as Earth is 1 AU from the Sun. I would not recommend that without a TN start. Temperatures will be a serious problem long before the Earth even gets to Mercury orbit.
-
Any chance we can find randomly generated death spiral bodies in a future version?
-
Is say 0.03 AU (so 4.5 millions km) the distance reduction of the orbit? So earth explodes in 49 years (once she reaches 1 million distance). Must be an inferno well before though.
33 years for the 0.03 scenario as Earth is 1 AU from the Sun. I would not recommend that without a TN start. Temperatures will be a serious problem long before the Earth even gets to Mercury orbit.
I managed to get my 8-years old maths wrong ;D
Thanks Steve, new option is very appealing!
-
Any chance we can find randomly generated death spiral bodies in a future version?
The player probably wouldn't bother to colonize such a planet unless there is some incentive added. Maybe a +100% mining modifier paired with good mineral deposits on the planet.
Another option would be to place a non-TN NPR-race on that planet and let the player decide whether he wants to save them or let them die.
-
From the change log "Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
You had said that you had forgotten the 0.01 and yet here you divide by 10000 which is 0.0001. Should the equation be written as such:
"Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 100"
Additionally how is the increase in unrest computed - the change logs only mention how unrest is reduced. (Edit: Ive read it again and im assuming if you dont have enough its just a negative police modifier which creates unrest instead)
Furthermore is 1.12 going to show the policing and required policing like VB6 used to?
-
From the change log "Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
You had said that you had forgotten the 0.01 and yet here you divide by 10000 which is 0.0001. Should the equation be written as such:
"Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 100"
Additionally how is the increase in unrest computed - the change logs only mention how unrest is reduced.
Furthermore is 1.12 going to show the policing and required policing like VB6 used to?
I combined the /100 and * 0.01 to make it more readable. SQRT(Size) * Units * (Morale/100) * 0.01 is the same as (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
Unrest is calculated for a variety of different situations. I'll put a post together at some point. 1.12 does show police strength.
-
From the change log "Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
You had said that you had forgotten the 0.01 and yet here you divide by 10000 which is 0.0001. Should the equation be written as such:
"Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 100"
Additionally how is the increase in unrest computed - the change logs only mention how unrest is reduced.
Furthermore is 1.12 going to show the policing and required policing like VB6 used to?
I combined the /100 and * 0.01 to make it more readable. SQRT(Size) * Units * (Morale/100) * 0.01 is the same as (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
Unrest is calculated for a variety of different situations. I'll put a post together at some point. 1.12 does show police strength.
I just thought of this question - what about non-combat classes. In particular im thinking supply trucks. Do they also contribute to defence? The change logs only talk about unit size, amount and morale as factors.
-
From the change log "Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
You had said that you had forgotten the 0.01 and yet here you divide by 10000 which is 0.0001. Should the equation be written as such:
"Element Occupation Strength = (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 100"
Additionally how is the increase in unrest computed - the change logs only mention how unrest is reduced.
Furthermore is 1.12 going to show the policing and required policing like VB6 used to?
I combined the /100 and * 0.01 to make it more readable. SQRT(Size) * Units * (Morale/100) * 0.01 is the same as (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
Unrest is calculated for a variety of different situations. I'll put a post together at some point. 1.12 does show police strength.
I just thought of this question - what about non-combat classes. In particular im thinking supply trucks. Do they also contribute to defence? The change logs only talk about unit size, amount and morale as factors.
Everything contributes, but supply trucks are a lot less efficient than infantry in terms of cost vs occupation strength.
-
If I'm reading things right, a large number of units will be more effective at policing then a small number of units for any given formation size? So light personal weapons might have a use in this case?
-
If I'm reading things right, a large number of units will be more effective at policing then a small number of units for any given formation size? So light personal weapons might have a use in this case?
I made a police officer class which is exactly that for this purpose.
Since I am playing on 1.11.0 I can't tell how effective but how many 3t police officers would I need to police 4b Imperial population. Assume that the only source of unrest is because of 0 PPV in the system.
-
I just thought of this question - what about non-combat classes. In particular im thinking supply trucks. Do they also contribute to defence? The change logs only talk about unit size, amount and morale as factors.
Everything contributes, but supply trucks are a lot less efficient than infantry in terms of cost vs occupation strength.
Do higher techs contribute to how much unrest protection units provide?
I.e. Do the "Racial Armour Strength" and "Racial Weapon Strength" values displayed in the GU windows affect the calculation in any way?
-
I just thought of this question - what about non-combat classes. In particular im thinking supply trucks. Do they also contribute to defence? The change logs only talk about unit size, amount and morale as factors.
Everything contributes, but supply trucks are a lot less efficient than infantry in terms of cost vs occupation strength.
Do higher techs contribute to how much unrest protection units provide?
I.e. Do the "Racial Armour Strength" and "Racial Weapon Strength" values displayed in the GU windows affect the calculation in any way?
If you look at the equations you'll see that they do not factor in.
It makes sense since as the military grade stuff gets better the hand-me-down stuff that civilians would have access to would also improve.
-
Speaking of Sol disasters, maybe the option to start with an Aeather Rift in Sol could be funny (and maybe even useful for testing purposes).
No idea how terribly unbalanced that would be though.
-
I combined the /100 and * 0.01 to make it more readable. SQRT(Size) * Units * (Morale/100) * 0.01 is the same as (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000"
Unrest is calculated for a variety of different situations. I'll put a post together at some point. 1.12 does show police strength.
Hearing that we'll be able to see police strength now is great, thanks!
-
Speaking of Sol disasters, maybe the option to start with an Aeather Rift in Sol could be funny (and maybe even useful for testing purposes).
No idea how terribly unbalanced that would be though.
Some people would no doubt consider it a challenge.
On a similar topic, a variant on 'Earth falls into the Sun' comes to mind:
Instead of being tied to a specific body, have it affect whichever (remaining) body is closest to the Sun. IE it starts with Mercury and works its way out. On the one hand the player gets a little more time before Earth goes bye-bye, but on the other hand Mars isn't much of a refuge because it is next on the list. The asteroid belt will take a while to clear before Jupiter starts the plunge, but its moons aren't very habitable to start with. No matter how you cut it, the objective is to escape Sol.
If that still isn't enough of a challenge then have it affect every body in Sol simultaneously.
-
If that still isn't enough of a challenge then have it affect every body in Sol simultaneously.
This gave me an idea - the sun starts transitioning into a red giant.
-
I've changed the greenhouse gas mechanics post, so that greenhouse and anti-greenhouse are independent and dust is now treated as an anti-greenhouse gas.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11593.msg136866#msg136866
-
I've changed the greenhouse gas mechanics post, so that greenhouse and anti-greenhouse are independent and dust is now treated as an anti-greenhouse gas.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11593.msg136866#msg136866
Question, does this mean we can now terraform dust out of the atmosphere...asking for a friend with some glassed planets?
-
I've changed the greenhouse gas mechanics post, so that greenhouse and anti-greenhouse are independent and dust is now treated as an anti-greenhouse gas.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11593.msg136866#msg136866
At the end of the "note" section you call dust a greenhouse gas, I think to avoid confusion you should say anti-greenhouse gas there even if it is obvious from the equations.
-
Although this isn't 1.12.0 specific I have a question regarding ground forces and environmental tolerances.
If my race has multiple species because of conquest - how does environmental tolerance work for ground forces? Does it use the species tolerance of my primary species (humans) all the time? Or does it depend on the training location?
E.g. My ground units trained from a population that has an alien species will use the alien tolerances as a benchmark whereas stuff trained on earth will use human tolerances to determine which debuffs are in play.
If my example is true then there are interesting possibilities of differentiation between local forces and has interesting implications for when species level gene modding becomes a thing.
-
On a similar topic, a variant on 'Earth falls into the Sun' comes to mind:
Instead of being tied to a specific body, have it affect whichever (remaining) body is closest to the Sun. IE it starts with Mercury and works its way out. On the one hand the player gets a little more time before Earth goes bye-bye, but on the other hand Mars isn't much of a refuge because it is next on the list. The asteroid belt will take a while to clear before Jupiter starts the plunge, but its moons aren't very habitable to start with. No matter how you cut it, the objective is to escape Sol.
If that still isn't enough of a challenge then have it affect every body in Sol simultaneously.
Might be more effective if it affects a specific radius that slowly increases to consume more and more bodies. Otherwise when it gets to the asteroid belt, it's going to basically stall there as it has to wait for each individual asteroid to plummet into the sun before starting on the next.
You could even do some interesting things with it. Maybe a spoiler race has a weapon that can induce a collapse on any star. Perhaps there's a line of research to counteract it, either by slowing the rate of the radius's increase or (an expensive) project/weapon that can stop it altogether. Whether that means all bodies stay in their new orbit, or it just saves any unaffected ones.
You could even work it into the lore somehow (extra gravity is leaking in?) and have it affect TN travel, slowing ships the closer to the center they get.
-
On a similar topic, a variant on 'Earth falls into the Sun' comes to mind:
Instead of being tied to a specific body, have it affect whichever (remaining) body is closest to the Sun. IE it starts with Mercury and works its way out. On the one hand the player gets a little more time before Earth goes bye-bye, but on the other hand Mars isn't much of a refuge because it is next on the list. The asteroid belt will take a while to clear before Jupiter starts the plunge, but its moons aren't very habitable to start with. No matter how you cut it, the objective is to escape Sol.
If that still isn't enough of a challenge then have it affect every body in Sol simultaneously.
You could even work it into the lore somehow (extra gravity is leaking in?) and have it affect TN travel, slowing ships the closer to the center they get.
VB6 actually had certain systems be in nebulae that did exactly that, i do wonder when we get those back and what changes they would undergo.
-
I've changed the greenhouse gas mechanics post, so that greenhouse and anti-greenhouse are independent and dust is now treated as an anti-greenhouse gas.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11593.msg136866#msg136866
Question, does this mean we can now terraform dust out of the atmosphere...asking for a friend with some glassed planets?
:)
No, it is just treated as a gas for the calculation.
-
I've changed the greenhouse gas mechanics post, so that greenhouse and anti-greenhouse are independent and dust is now treated as an anti-greenhouse gas.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11593.msg136866#msg136866
At the end of the "note" section you call dust a greenhouse gas, I think to avoid confusion you should say anti-greenhouse gas there even if it is obvious from the equations.
Good point - I've changed it.
-
Being able to Terraform Dust out of the Atmosphere would be nice, I mean there is still the radiation to contend with... not to mention the collateral...
-
Being able to Terraform Dust out of the Atmosphere would be nice, I mean there is still the radiation to contend with... not to mention the collateral...
I am not against ability to terraform dust but consider that it would make beam based bombardment very powerful. Beam bombardment does not radiate the planet so the only medium-term effect is the dust - which can already be counteracted through copious application of infrastructure.
-
Frankly, that would make sense. Let's be honest, if you want to conquer a planet and use nukes, you HAVE to suffer because of that.
Being able to terraform away the dust would make sense imo.
Also, in my opinion the amount of dust raised by beam weapons should be minimal anyway....
-
Being able to Terraform Dust out of the Atmosphere would be nice, I mean there is still the radiation to contend with... not to mention the collateral...
I am not against ability to terraform dust but consider that it would make beam based bombardment very powerful. Beam bombardment does not radiate the planet so the only medium-term effect is the dust - which can already be counteracted through copious application of infrastructure.
It still requires the act of introducing some means of terraforming into a area that until recently was enemy territory and one they may very well wish to reclaim. So it's not just some blanket net gain without additional risk.
-
Frankly, that would make sense. Let's be honest, if you want to conquer a planet and use nukes, you HAVE to suffer because of that.
Being able to terraform away the dust would make sense imo.
Also, in my opinion the amount of dust raised by beam weapons should be minimal anyway....
Consider the power of said weapons... this isn't a sci-fi style laser, this is a real combat laser, which means it produces superheating and explosions when it strikes a target. Let alone railguns, which also are 'beams' in terms of this discussion. Terraforming dust makes sense, but beams causing dust also makes a lot of sense.
I am not against ability to terraform dust but consider that it would make beam based bombardment very powerful. Beam bombardment does not radiate the planet so the only medium-term effect is the dust - which can already be counteracted through copious application of infrastructure.
To be fair, beam bombardment is dangerous, MUCH more dangerous then standing off and launching vast numbers of missiles, it's also quite a bit less effective per tonnage involved. Currently planets cannot mount missile weapons, meaning that if your fleet is out of beam range, it's safe. By definition, STOs outrange equal tech ships, that means if you want to use beam weapons, you are risking quite a lot of return fire(and I would be fine with more of a buff of STOs, personally, like letting them have better tracking speeds then the minimum, or more armor). And if there isn't return fire...well...then it's only a matter of time, regardless.
It's not like it normally takes resources to reduce dust, just time. Terraforming is just a way to make that time shorter using resources.
-
Frankly, that would make sense. Let's be honest, if you want to conquer a planet and use nukes, you HAVE to suffer because of that.
Being able to terraform away the dust would make sense imo.
Also, in my opinion the amount of dust raised by beam weapons should be minimal anyway....
Consider the power of said weapons... this isn't a sci-fi style laser, this is a real combat laser, which means it produces superheating and explosions when it strikes a target. Let alone railguns, which also are 'beams' in terms of this discussion. Terraforming dust makes sense, but beams causing dust also makes a lot of sense.
Yes, but here we're talking of enough dust to actually lower the temperature of the entire planet. I'm just saying, I don't think the "beam" weapons we have are strong enough to bring up THAT much dust in the atmosphere.
These are not continent or planet destroying lasers/ mass drivers, like in star wars or other Sci-fi settings
Disclaimer, I have not really seriously bombarded a planet yet, so I don't know exactly how much dust beam weapon bombardment creates. I'm just saying, on principle it should be little compared to the scale of a large planet.
-
Why can't we terraform the dust away by beaming it already? ;D
-
Why can't we terraform the dust away by beaming it already? ;D
space vacuumER?
:)
-
Oh god, now I'm imagining all of my terraformers as that space vacuum cleaner from Space Balls....
WHYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!
-
Oh god, now I'm imagining all of my terraformers as that space vacuum cleaner from Space Balls....
WHYYYYYYYY!?!?!?!
I recall a proposal from a while back for either a terraforming mode or a new module that indiscriminately removes atmosphere. If it also removed dust then it would truly be worthy of the name "Megamaid".
-
So with the death spiral, I'm assuming that all orbital ships/missiles, etc. at both Earth and Luna spiral in with it. Does this also apply to waypoints set on the planet?
What happens if Earth has a stabilized LP in its orbit? Does the LP also get closer to the sun as Earth's orbit reduces? Will it disappear when Earth is destroyed? Will preexisting movement orders using the LP reroute automatically?
-
So with the death spiral, I'm assuming that all orbital ships/missiles, etc. at both Earth and Luna spiral in with it. Does this also apply to waypoints set on the planet?
What happens if Earth has a stabilized LP in its orbit? Does the LP also get closer to the sun as Earth's orbit reduces? Will it disappear when Earth is destroyed? Will preexisting movement orders using the LP reroute automatically?
Everything in orbit moves with the Earth, including waypoints. Any Lagrange point will move with the Earth and will be removed when the Earth is destroyed. Existing movement orders won't be rerouted.
-
So with the death spiral, I'm assuming that all orbital ships/missiles, etc. at both Earth and Luna spiral in with it. Does this also apply to waypoints set on the planet?
What happens if Earth has a stabilized LP in its orbit? Does the LP also get closer to the sun as Earth's orbit reduces? Will it disappear when Earth is destroyed? Will preexisting movement orders using the LP reroute automatically?
Everything in orbit moves with the Earth, including waypoints. Any Lagrange point will move with the Earth and will be removed when the Earth is destroyed. Existing movement orders won't be rerouted.
Hi Steve, happy 10,000 posts. I thought was a remarkable milestone to celebrate :)
-
Hi Steve, happy 10,000 posts. I thought was a remarkable milestone to celebrate :)
I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it :)
-
Steve
Can you have a look at refuelling fleets. My fleets run out of fuel even if I got fuel tanker with them. its just a real pain that I have to detach tanker, then get fleet to refuel from tanker one at a time.
Regards
-
Steve
Can you have a look at refuelling fleets. My fleets run out of fuel even if I got fuel tanker with them. its just a real pain that I have to detach tanker, then get fleet to refuel from tanker one at a time.
Regards
You know that (a) you have to set certain options to make a tanker auto-fuel its fleet and (b) refueling while moving is at a penalty that can be very large if you haven't researched the associated tech line sufficiently?
-
We have a bug report related to underway refuelling over in the bug thread, could be that one hitting you.
-
New 'Load All Minerals Until Full' Move Order
I've added a new movement order called 'Load All Minerals Until Full'. This is exactly the same as the Load All Minerals order except that the same order will remain until the fleet's cargo capacity is full. Reserve levels will be observed for this order.
In mechanics terms, when the loading timer runs down to zero the order is completed if the cargo capacity is full. If not, the fleet movement ends for the sub-pulse and the loading clock is reset. The cycle repeats until the cargo holds are full.
This will allow players to set up freighter runs to bring minerals from outlying colonies without micromanagement or fuel waste.
Awesome QOL change.
Could we get a load fuel order like this as well please? for picking up fuel from fuel harvesters?
-
Hello Steve, do you have some ETA on 1.12.0? I was thinking about starting new game, so just wondering if I should wait for new version or start at 1.11.
-
Also interested for same reason, though I shall put the question slightly differently. Are you thinking of working it for another week or two or putting out a release sooner than that?
-
Not within the next 10 days. We are out in the motorhome this weekend so the earliest realistic option would be the weekend after (assuming bad weather :) )
I also want to play more in my campaign for test purposes and fix the remaining bugs that the moderators have confirmed.
-
Not within the next 10 days. We are out in the motorhome this weekend so the earliest realistic option would be the weekend after (assuming bad weather :) )
I also want to play more in my campaign for test purposes and fix the remaining bugs that the moderators have confirmed.
Enjoy the trip!
-
Not within the next 10 days. We are out in the motorhome this weekend so the earliest realistic option would be the weekend after (assuming bad weather :) )
I also want to play more in my campaign for test purposes and fix the remaining bugs that the moderators have confirmed.
And yet I thought I would never said this: I miss the lockdown! Have fun
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not within the next 10 days. We are out in the motorhome this weekend so the earliest realistic option would be the weekend after (assuming bad weather :) )
I also want to play more in my campaign for test purposes and fix the remaining bugs that the moderators have confirmed.
Have a good trip.
-
Do you plan to add any features that will allow us to retrain/upgrade our ground templates to use the most up-to-date Racial Armor and Weapon strengths?
This is my biggest problem with the game right now as I never want to make any ground units cuz I know they'll be forced to use the armor and weapons I have at the moment.
-
Trying to drum up visibility for this, but this bug is still present in v 1.11.0, I've tested it and confirmed it.
It goes all the way back to 1.9.4, has this been addressed yet?
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11231.msg131041#msg131041
-
Any chance under the hood somebody is looking at why mines and 2 stage missiles in general don't work?
I saw the fix on changelog on 2 stage contributing on magazine explosions, which is fine, I am just not sure who is actually using any considering they are currently "useless".
Only buoys work on second stage and there was a report of 2 stage missiles launched and succesfully decoupled within range of MFC only but was never really confirmed as mostly all reports are just fails of any design.
-
My 2 stage missiles worked just fine in 1.10.
-
More auto assignment is a good thing in my books :)
Just one question: I see the priority has "0 = Low". Can I get confirmation if Ship priority works the same way? I ask as this post makes it sound like 0 is the highest priority for ships: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104046#msg104046
Thanks!
-
More auto assignment is a good thing in my books :0
Just one question: I see the priority has "0 = Low". Can I get confirmation if Ship priority works the same way? I ask as this post makes it sound like 0 is the highest priority for ships: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104046#msg104046
Thanks!
0 is the highest priority for ships, which had caused a lot of confusion because people have different ideas regarding whether high or low numbers should indicate priority. I think I mentioned somewhere I was going to reverse that, but the code still has 0 as highest priority so it looks like I never changed it. I've edited the post you linked to make it clear.
The above is why I called it importance instead of priority for colonies, as most people would assume higher numbers mean more important. I should probably do the same for ships in v1.12.
-
I will also set the default priority to 10, so that it is easy to make one class lower priority without having to change all the others
Such a minor thing but it'll save a lot of clicks in the long run!
-
More auto assignment is a good thing in my books :0
Just one question: I see the priority has "0 = Low". Can I get confirmation if Ship priority works the same way? I ask as this post makes it sound like 0 is the highest priority for ships: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104046#msg104046
Thanks!
0 is the highest priority for ships, which had caused a lot of confusion because people have different ideas regarding whether high or low numbers should indicate priority. I think I mentioned somewhere I was going to reverse that, but the code still has 0 as highest priority so it looks like I never changed it. I've edited the post you linked to make it clear.
The above is why I called it importance instead of priority for colonies, as most people would assume higher numbers mean more important. I should probably do the same for ships in v1.12.
That's great. Having 0 as the lowest priority even for ships makes sense and makes it consistent with governors, so easier to remember.
-
The governor auto-assign looks great! That's something I've wanted for years! Really like having it as a tab on the colony window - I'd been thinking of it as something on the leaders window, but this looks a lot more convenient.
Anyway, about naval admin commands... :P
-
More auto assignment is a good thing in my books :0
Just one question: I see the priority has "0 = Low". Can I get confirmation if Ship priority works the same way? I ask as this post makes it sound like 0 is the highest priority for ships: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104046#msg104046
Thanks!
0 is the highest priority for ships, which had caused a lot of confusion because people have different ideas regarding whether high or low numbers should indicate priority. I think I mentioned somewhere I was going to reverse that, but the code still has 0 as the highest priority so it looks like I never changed it. I've edited the post you linked to make it clear.
The above is why I called it importance instead of priority for colonies, as most people would assume higher numbers mean more important. I should probably do the same for ships in v1.12.
Hi Steve, here from the FAQ http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10715.msg123266#msg123266 if you can please confirm so I can also update on the FAQ with the right information.
Thanks!
EDIT: all good, saw the post and updated FAQ.
-
The governor auto-assign looks great! That's something I've wanted for years! Really like having it as a tab on the colony window - I'd been thinking of it as something on the leaders window, but this looks a lot more convenient.
Anyway, about naval admin commands... :P
Yes, I will try to sort out something similar at some point.
-
The governor auto-assign looks great! That's something I've wanted for years! Really like having it as a tab on the colony window - I'd been thinking of it as something on the leaders window, but this looks a lot more convenient.
Anyway, about naval admin commands... :P
Yes, I will try to sort out something similar at some point.
As long as Manual allocation it's still viable though, full auto it's never good I think for many players.
-
The auto-assign is great, but could we possibly get an option to filter the event log to only show events that happen to an assigned officer? Because I really, really don't care about some random captain retiring, and I really, really, do care about the Admiral who's running my top fleet command doing the same.
-
Referring to change into occupation factors etc I remember discussing in another post the possibility of a colony to declare indipendence for then been told that the mechanic was not implemented as yet.
Although today I was refreshing my mind with the diplonacy rules and I stumbled upon the original post that made me believe the mechanic was indeed there already.
I then run a test very quickly to test it and find out that yes, the mechanic it's either not been coded or maybe a bug it's preventing it to kick in.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg118467#msg118467
Steve are you able to look into it and let us know?
Thanks.
-
Referring to change into occupation factors etc I remember discussing in another post the possibility of a colony to declare indipendence for then been told that the mechanic was not implemented as yet.
Although today I was refreshing my mind with the diplonacy rules and I stumbled upon the original post that made me believe the mechanic was indeed there already.
I then run a test very quickly to test it and find out that yes, the mechanic it's either not been coded or maybe a bug it's preventing it to kick in.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg118467#msg118467
Steve are you able to look into it and let us know?
Thanks.
Independence is manual only at the moment.
-
Is there any ETA on 1. 12 ?
Would really love to start a new game, but 1. 12 has so many nice features . . .
-
Is there any ETA on 1. 12 ?
Would really love to start a new game, but 1. 12 has so many nice features . . .
I need to finish going through the bugs thread and I am halfway through adding formations, so it just depends on my time. At the moment, work is very busy and we are going away every weekend in our motorhome, so progress is slow.
Things will speed up if the weather gets worse :)
-
Is there any ETA on 1. 12 ?
Would really love to start a new game, but 1. 12 has so many nice features . . .
I am halfway through adding formations
WTF!!!!!!!
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Long Live Walmsley
-
Is there any ETA on 1. 12 ?
Would really love to start a new game, but 1. 12 has so many nice features . . .
I need to finish going through the bugs thread and I am halfway through adding formations, so it just depends on my time. At the moment, work is very busy and we are going away every weekend in our motorhome, so progress is slow.
Things will speed up if the weather gets worse :)
Formations!?!?!? Did he say Formations!?!?!? What is this!?!!?
-
Is there any ETA on 1. 12 ?
Would really love to start a new game, but 1. 12 has so many nice features . . .
I need to finish going through the bugs thread and I am halfway through adding formations, so it just depends on my time. At the moment, work is very busy and we are going away every weekend in our motorhome, so progress is slow.
Things will speed up if the weather gets worse :)
Formations!?!?!? Did he say Formations!?!?!? What is this!?!!?
Formations are the solution to all my problems and I am sure to a lot of Jorge's one too. I hope he is reading
-
Things will speed up if the weather gets worse :)
In that case, I hope it's terrible weather for days and days. :D
-
Well, I wish him good weather. :)
The quarantine sucks. >:(
-
Just read that we will finally get governor auto assignments. All hail Steve ;-)
I was wondering though if there will be any messages if the auto system wasn't able to auto-assign to certain posts. That would be awesome.
-
Adding formations? Aren't formations already in the game or is this something entirely different that I'm completely out of the loop on?
-
Adding formations? Aren't formations already in the game or is this something entirely different that I'm completely out of the loop on?
Formations for ship/fleet were in VB6 but not yet implemented on C#.
You may be confused with groung unit formations which are a different thing both is use and function.
-
Adding formations? Aren't formations already in the game or is this something entirely different that I'm completely out of the loop on?
Here is a quick preview.
Each fleet can be set to act in relation to another friendly fleet, designated the 'Anchor Fleet', and the presence of 'threats'. So you might set fleet A to place itself a million kilometres from fleet B in the direction of alien ship C. As fleet A and alien ship C manoeuvre, fleet B will attempt to maintain that position.
Once an Anchor Fleet is set, there is a descending order of potential threats. Firstly, you can specify a specific alien ship, even if that ship is not currently on sensors, in the same system or hostile. However, that threat will be ignored until the specific alien ship is on sensors in the same system. Secondly, you can toggle the fleet to use the nearest hostile warship as the threat. A 'warship' in this context is an alien ship that you know has weapons (as per the Intelligence for the parent alien class). So if the specific threat is destroyed or moves out of sensor range, the fleet will use the nearest hostile warship as the threat instead. Third is the toggle for the nearest hostile contact. So with no specific threat or warship, the fleet will use any hostile contact as the threat. Finally, you can use the Anchor Fleet's destination as the 'threat'
You can set a distance from the Anchor fleet and an offset bearing. So you might have two fleets set to be 30 degrees either side and ahead of an Anchor Fleet to act as sensor pickets, or you might have your support ships set at 180 degrees so they follow the Anchor fleet.
The second and third panels on the screenshot allow you to choose anchor fleets and specific threats.
Finally, if a fleet joins another fleet as a sub-fleet, the sub-fleet will retain its formation settings. While they won't be used by the sub-fleet while it is part of a fleet, they will become active again if the sub-fleet is detached and becomes a fleet again. This will allow easy detachment of escorts. I intend to have recall escort fleets and deploy escort fleets orders to make this easier. It's not all coded yet, but this is the general idea.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Crusade2020/Formations.PNG)
-
This is absolutely beautiful. Makes me really excited for 1.12 ;D
-
ahh, this looks cool really
i just hoped its something for ground forces to build them in batch or reinforce to set formation :)
-
The new formation and escort mechanic sounds really fantastic, allot better then I initially hoped for 1.12 release. Really exiting new possibilities for complex manoeuvring with relatively little efforts.
-
More auto assignment is a good thing in my books :0
Just one question: I see the priority has "0 = Low". Can I get confirmation if Ship priority works the same way? I ask as this post makes it sound like 0 is the highest priority for ships: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104046#msg104046
Thanks!
0 is the highest priority for ships, which had caused a lot of confusion because people have different ideas regarding whether high or low numbers should indicate priority. I think I mentioned somewhere I was going to reverse that, but the code still has 0 as highest priority so it looks like I never changed it. I've edited the post you linked to make it clear.
The above is why I called it importance instead of priority for colonies, as most people would assume higher numbers mean more important. I should probably do the same for ships in v1.12.
What will you do about bridge crew allocation? Right now I have a problem where because command assignments are prioritized over bridge crew assignments, all my tactical and chief engineers are being hoovered up by freighters or defence satellites. Do you have any plans to make it possible for someone to designate a class as "important" so that its bridge crew assignments receive priority over the command posts on lesser ships like freighters?
Do you also have any plans to add something like "exclude class from auto assignment" so for example I can bar my defence satellites from having officers? (I build literally 100s of them)
Edit: Are there any plans to add officer priority to formations as well? For example set a default priority on template creation and maybe change it later after training. This way garrisons wont hoover up officers for lets say the assault infantry.
-
Do you also have any plans to add something like "exclude class from auto assignment" so for example I can bar my defence satellites from having officers? (I build literally 100s of them)
Edit: Are there any plans to add officer priority to formations as well? For example set a default priority on template creation and maybe change it later after training. This way garrisons wont hoover up officers for lets say the assault infantry.
I second that. The number of early warning satellites I use makes using auto assign impractical for me as well. I'd personally love to have an option of making them fully automated as well but that's a different story.
-
Adding formations? Aren't formations already in the game or is this something entirely different that I'm completely out of the loop on?
Here is a quick preview.
Each fleet can be set to act in relation to another friendly fleet, designated the 'Anchor Fleet', and the presence of 'threats'. So you might set fleet A to place itself a million kilometres from fleet B in the direction of alien ship C. As fleet A and alien ship C manoeuvre, fleet B will attempt to maintain that position.
Once an Anchor Fleet is set, there is a descending order of potential threats. Firstly, you can specify a specific alien ship, even if that ship is not currently on sensors, in the same system or hostile. However, that threat will be ignored until the specific alien ship is on sensors in the same system. Secondly, you can toggle the fleet to use the nearest hostile warship as the threat. A 'warship' in this context is an alien ship that you know has weapons (as per the Intelligence for the parent alien class). So if the specific threat is destroyed or moves out of sensor range, the fleet will use the nearest hostile warship as the threat instead. Third is the toggle for the nearest hostile contact. So with no specific threat or warship, the fleet will use any hostile contact as the threat. Finally, you can use the Anchor Fleet's destination as the 'threat'
You can set a distance from the Anchor fleet and an offset bearing. So you might have two fleets set to be 30 degrees either side and ahead of an Anchor Fleet to act as sensor pickets, or you might have your support ships set at 180 degrees so they follow the Anchor fleet.
The second and third panels on the screenshot allow you to choose anchor fleets and specific threats.
Finally, if a fleet joins another fleet as a sub-fleet, the sub-fleet will retain its formation settings. While they won't be used by the sub-fleet while it is part of a fleet, they will become active again if the sub-fleet is detached and becomes a fleet again. This will allow easy detachment of escorts. I intend to have recall escort fleets and deploy escort fleets orders to make this easier. It's not all coded yet, but this is the general idea.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Crusade2020/Formations.PNG)
Just a quick question... will we be able to set a bearing on the follow command to for single fleet in a target fleet?
This would be useful for shadowing an enemy fleet from a specific angle.
-
Adding formations? Aren't formations already in the game or is this something entirely different that I'm completely out of the loop on?
Here is a quick preview.
Each fleet can be set to act in relation to another friendly fleet, designated the 'Anchor Fleet', and the presence of 'threats'. So you might set fleet A to place itself a million kilometres from fleet B in the direction of alien ship C. As fleet A and alien ship C manoeuvre, fleet B will attempt to maintain that position.
Once an Anchor Fleet is set, there is a descending order of potential threats. Firstly, you can specify a specific alien ship, even if that ship is not currently on sensors, in the same system or hostile. However, that threat will be ignored until the specific alien ship is on sensors in the same system. Secondly, you can toggle the fleet to use the nearest hostile warship as the threat. A 'warship' in this context is an alien ship that you know has weapons (as per the Intelligence for the parent alien class). So if the specific threat is destroyed or moves out of sensor range, the fleet will use the nearest hostile warship as the threat instead. Third is the toggle for the nearest hostile contact. So with no specific threat or warship, the fleet will use any hostile contact as the threat. Finally, you can use the Anchor Fleet's destination as the 'threat'
You can set a distance from the Anchor fleet and an offset bearing. So you might have two fleets set to be 30 degrees either side and ahead of an Anchor Fleet to act as sensor pickets, or you might have your support ships set at 180 degrees so they follow the Anchor fleet.
The second and third panels on the screenshot allow you to choose anchor fleets and specific threats.
Finally, if a fleet joins another fleet as a sub-fleet, the sub-fleet will retain its formation settings. While they won't be used by the sub-fleet while it is part of a fleet, they will become active again if the sub-fleet is detached and becomes a fleet again. This will allow easy detachment of escorts. I intend to have recall escort fleets and deploy escort fleets orders to make this easier. It's not all coded yet, but this is the general idea.
(http://hxxp: www. pentarch. org/steve/Screenshots/Crusade2020/Formations. PNG)
Just a quick question. . . will we be able to set a bearing on the follow command to for single fleet in a target fleet?
This would be useful for shadowing an enemy fleet from a specific angle.
there is the bearing offset button so im guessing its going to be in
-
Just a quick question. . . will we be able to set a bearing on the follow command to for single fleet in a target fleet?
This would be useful for shadowing an enemy fleet from a specific angle.
there is the bearing offset button so im guessing its going to be in
That sets the offset from the anchor fleet, not from the target.
-
Setting aside my current long running 1.1 campaign in anticipation of 1.12. There aren't any new features in 1.12 that I feel like I must have but the bug fixes are what I'm looking forward. FOUR times in this current campaign I had my shipyard construction wiped out because of the shipyard slipway destruction bug. I'm willing to wait to see that one alone go away.................
-
I think there's quite a few of us waiting with bated breath for 1.12 - the bugfixes are nice (especially the one that means the passive sensor drones I drop all over the place will actually start working!) - but it's the new features that have me excited. Hopefully Steve gets it out soon. :D
-
Yes I am looking forward to 1.12 as well so I took a break from the game, spent a week fixing my excel to be ready for a new campaign along with a new ribbon set.
Now I will relax playing some Shadow Empire which I havent installed yet to avoid temptation and losing focus on Aurora 1.12 preparation.
-
Do we have a ETA on 1.12?
-
Do we have a ETA on 1.12?
Yes. This year ;D
-
Do we have a ETA on 1.12?
I'm pretty sure we've got the same thing going on here as with Half Life 3: Every time someone asks about a release date, Steve puts the date back another week ;D
-
Do we have a ETA on 1. 12?
I'm pretty sure we've got the same thing going on here as with Half Life 3: Every time someone asks about a release date, Steve puts the date back another week ;D
The exact formula to work out how many weeks is this.
weeks_till_release = (when_project_finished + (1* num_posts_asking_about_release_date))
-
This feels like being back before the release of C#... waiting vor 1.12 ;D
-
Isle of Man 7 day weather forecast looks terribly rainy. :) Perfect weather for some indoor coding work Steve might have.
-
1.12 Update: This is sort of good news, bad news. The good news is that I have been spending a lot of time on Aurora over the last few days. The bad news is that I have been playing it, rather than programming.
My campaign has been very good in the 'just one more turn' sense. I've fixed a couple of bugs along the way, but mainly just playing. I'll try to get back to the development side this week. As someone mentioned above, the forecast is not great for the next few days so that will help. Although I just bought a drone so frustrating not to be able to play with it :)
-
1.12 Update: This is sort of good news, bad news. The good news is that I have been spending a lot of time on Aurora over the last few days. The bad news is that I have been playing it, rather than programming.
My campaign has been very good in the 'just one more turn' sense. I've fixed a couple of bugs along the way, but mainly just playing. I'll try to get back to the development side this week. As someone mentioned above, the forecast is not great for the next few days so that will help. Although I just bought a drone so frustrating not to be able to play with it :)
:'(
-
1.12 Update: This is sort of good news, bad news. The good news is that I have been spending a lot of time on Aurora over the last few days. The bad news is that I have been playing it, rather than programming.
My campaign has been very good in the 'just one more turn' sense. I've fixed a couple of bugs along the way, but mainly just playing.
Right on, having fun is what it's all about :) Hearing this kinda makes me want to start back in on a campaign myself!
-
1.12 Update: This is sort of good news, bad news. The good news is that I have been spending a lot of time on Aurora over the last few days. The bad news is that I have been playing it, rather than programming.
My campaign has been very good in the 'just one more turn' sense. I've fixed a couple of bugs along the way, but mainly just playing. I'll try to get back to the development side this week. As someone mentioned above, the forecast is not great for the next few days so that will help. Although I just bought a drone so frustrating not to be able to play with it :)
Pretty sure that is Good News and Good News, except the bit about eh weather grounded drone
-
More Imperium of Man updates can never be bad news!
-
The Chinese should be a spoiler race that can spontaneously erupt on Holy Terra.
-
Can someone give me a practical example on how to use the Anchor Fleet mechanic?
-
Can someone give me a practical example on how to use the Anchor Fleet mechanic?
Positioning a chain of ships with resolution 1 active sensors ahead of the fleet, in the direction of incoming missiles. This would keep the missiles on sensors much longer, to rack up the tracking time accuracy bonus.
Positioning ships with smaller, quick firing lasers or rail guns in the direction of incoming missiles. With area fire orders, they might be able to get multiple shots at salvos as they fly past towards the main fleet body. Which lets you do useful anti-missile work with ships that can also do decent anti-ship damage in a beam fight.
It may be trickier to use this than the similar escort mechanic in VB6 though. The AI in VB6 was very fixated on firing at big ships, and would reliably ignore small forward escorts. C# AI doesn't seem to be this way, so may well pick off forward ships if it detects them, so may need to consider enemy sensor resolutions carefully, and even consider cloaking.
-
Can someone give me a practical example on how to use the Anchor Fleet mechanic?
Positioning a chain of ships with resolution 1 active sensors ahead of the fleet, in the direction of incoming missiles. This would keep the missiles on sensors much longer, to rack up the tracking time accuracy bonus.
Positioning ships with smaller, quick firing lasers or rail guns in the direction of incoming missiles. With area fire orders, they might be able to get multiple shots at salvos as they fly past towards the main fleet body. Which lets you do useful anti-missile work with ships that can also do decent anti-ship damage in a beam fight.
It may be trickier to use this than the similar escort mechanic in VB6 though. The AI in VB6 was very fixated on firing at big ships, and would reliably ignore small forward escorts. C# AI doesn't seem to be this way, so may well pick off forward ships if it detects them, so may need to consider enemy sensor resolutions carefully, and even consider cloaking.
Careful, sure, but missiles take time to travel which gives you time to see which sub-fleet is being targeted and place it on the far side of the rest of the fleet to interpose pd, with the non-targeted fleet 'retreating' towards the target fleet to reduce relative missile speed and increase engagement window(eg).. The AI making use of this kind of behavior is one tool to lessen the overwhelming utility of missile spam by forcing players to respect the fleet as a whole.
::A retain/do not retain memory of orders for subfleets on join/divide?
-
Steve, is it possible to code a 'Resupply and Refuel from Stationary Ship' conditional/order? Part of my Fleet Doctrine, particularly early on when I'm building support vessels for my exploration efforts, is to pair 2-3 Survey Ships with 'Replenishment Vessels' - mid size support vessels with both refueling and resupply capabilities that occupy a specific niche away from single purpose Tankers and Supply Ships which are generally moving resources/fuel/supplies between colonies. Something akin to the current John Lewis class of Replenishment Oilers used by the US Navy or the old Fort Victoria class used by the Royal Navy.
Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship
I've added a new order to "Resupply from Stationary Supply Ship".
This functions exactly like Refuel from a Stationary Tanker, except for supplies instead of fuel. The order will not work if the target fleet is moving when the fleet arrives.
-
Steve,
Have you any idea when we might see the ability to save and re-import medals + conditions from one game to another. My fingers are getting worn out re-inputting the same details each time on the medal screen.
DavidR
-
Hello,
Regarding the GU changes. Is it possible to add a create x time in the Ground Unit Construction tab for those who go down to the squad level of OOB? ;)
-
Hello Steve,
would it be possible to add an stabilize lagrane point standing order to keep the jump point stab fleets busy if there are no jump points to stabilize?
-
Woot! Ground force replenishment!
Another devastating strike against the forces of micro-management! This time, we won't need to wear ourselves out with tons of clicking to replenish our ground army for the next strike. :)
-
Steve,
Have you any idea when we might see the ability to save and re-import medals + conditions from one game to another. My fingers are getting worn out re-inputting the same details each time on the medal screen.
DavidR
If you are using the same medals in every game, just create the import file once and use the Medal import for every game.
-
Steve, just saw the ground force replacement model and thanks for addressing it! I rather liked my idea about doing it through the ground force complexes but your model is pretty cool as well - I'm thinking that I will end up making a 'support structure' of support commands on my populated worlds that will mimic the training commands/installations and depot-level activities that currently support the US Army here state-side. Replacement sources that are built get funneled there and as units rotate back, they will draw from them. I will still likely create forward replacement battalions like I do now to forward replace battlefield loses and sustain offensives.
One question, as equipment is replaced will the old equipment disappear or will it remain in the unit and have to manually destroyed or transferred to another formation?
-
The recent change to permit ground forces replenishment is absolutely wonderful and gives me a lot of hope for the future of ground combat more generally.
The change I REALLY hope to see is simply to let officers grant a fraction of their skills to units in attached formations, so that it will become worthwhile to have a fleshed out formation hierarchy.
-
Steve, just saw the ground force replacement model and thanks for addressing it! I rather liked my idea about doing it through the ground force complexes but your model is pretty cool as well - I'm thinking that I will end up making a 'support structure' of support commands on my populated worlds that will mimic the training commands/installations and depot-level activities that currently support the US Army here state-side. Replacement sources that are built get funneled there and as units rotate back, they will draw from them. I will still likely create forward replacement battalions like I do now to forward replace battlefield loses and sustain offensives.
One question, as equipment is replaced will the old equipment disappear or will it remain in the unit and have to manually destroyed or transferred to another formation?
Equipment will remain, so if you want to replace something that still exists you will need to do it manually. However, if the replacement code works as planned, I will probably add an option to also replace older units in the same series, with the outdated version transferred into the replacement formation. Lets see how the current functionality goes though before I add more complexity.
-
The recent change to permit ground forces replenishment is absolutely wonderful and gives me a lot of hope for the future of ground combat more generally.
The change I REALLY hope to see is simply to let officers grant a fraction of their skills to units in attached formations, so that it will become worthwhile to have a fleshed out formation hierarchy.
I meant to do this for v1.00 and forgot to add the code, so it will be addressed at some point.
-
Thanks for addressing several issues and improving ground force design.
Will we see artillery units treated in a similar way as orbital support in the future? As in; assign artillery support to a HQ with infantry formations beneath it and on a dice-roll, said formations and their units receive artillery support in combat.
-
I'm liking the sound of that "unit series" system. Do you maybe plan on doing something similar for space ship components?
I would like that a lot. I posted something like that in the suggestions forum a while ago:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11513.0
-
This new system is exactly what aurora ground combat needed. My only remaining gripes would be regarding large numbers of CAS being assigned to FFDs and ability to create OOB templates (an infantry division for example) but those are much more minor.
I particularly love the way unit series and replacement templates work now as well. My one question though - the unit series seem to be assigned based on unit type as opposed to what their components are - so if I have a medium armor template with nothing but medium tank destroyers but a replacement template with medium vehicles that are AA vehicles will they be used to replenish the tank destroyer template? Or will the players be able to create their own unit series in order to avoid different types of vehicles/units being replaced?
Of course this concern would be irrelevant if the game only looks at exact component-wise matches to units to look at auto-replacement.
-
This new system is exactly what aurora ground combat needed. My only remaining gripes would be regarding large numbers of CAS being assigned to FFDs and ability to create OOB templates (an infantry division for example) but those are much more minor.
I particularly love the way unit series and replacement templates work now as well. My one question though - the unit series seem to be assigned based on unit type as opposed to what their components are - so if I have a medium armor template with nothing but medium tank destroyers but a replacement template with medium vehicles that are AA vehicles will they be used to replenish the tank destroyer template? Or will the players be able to create their own unit series in order to avoid different types of vehicles/units being replaced?
Of course this concern would be irrelevant if the game only looks at exact component-wise matches to units to look at auto-replacement.
You can put whatever you want into a unit series without restriction. The replacement code will just take whatever is in the same series as the unit being replaced and work down the priority list when looking for potential replacements.
-
This new system is exactly what aurora ground combat needed. My only remaining gripes would be regarding large numbers of CAS being assigned to FFDs and ability to create OOB templates (an infantry division for example) but those are much more minor.
I particularly love the way unit series and replacement templates work now as well. My one question though - the unit series seem to be assigned based on unit type as opposed to what their components are - so if I have a medium armor template with nothing but medium tank destroyers but a replacement template with medium vehicles that are AA vehicles will they be used to replenish the tank destroyer template? Or will the players be able to create their own unit series in order to avoid different types of vehicles/units being replaced?
Of course this concern would be irrelevant if the game only looks at exact component-wise matches to units to look at auto-replacement.
You can put whatever you want into a unit series without restriction. The replacement code will just take whatever is in the same series as the unit being replaced and work down the priority list when looking for potential replacements.
I am a fool, I didnt notice the section on the left where the actual unit series are.
So the highest priority for a formation one with the largest number correct? This is consistent with how officer priority works on ships right?
Edit: Accidentally put my reply in the quote
Edit: Accidentally put steves reply outside the quote
-
So the highest priority for a formation one with the largest number correct? This is consistent with how officer priority works on ships right?
Yes, that correct. From v1.12 higher numbers are higher priority.
-
Will the replacement code try to replace 1 lost unit with another unit, or does it try to match tonnage?
-
One thing that would be nice for moving ground combat units with a detailed OOB, would be an order to load the parent formation + the children. For example: If you load a division, this order would also load the brigades, battalions, companies, etc. that are subordinate to the division. This would save a lot of clicking for large, detailed formations.
-
One thing that would be nice for moving ground combat units with a detailed OOB, would be an order to load the parent formation + the children. For example: If you load a division, this order would also load the brigades, battalions, companies, etc. that are subordinate to the division. This would save a lot of clicking for large, detailed formations.
Isn't that already there? Check on the movement orders there should be a flag load all subordinates or such.
-
One thing that would be nice for moving ground combat units with a detailed OOB, would be an order to load the parent formation + the children. For example: If you load a division, this order would also load the brigades, battalions, companies, etc. that are subordinate to the division. This would save a lot of clicking for large, detailed formations.
This already exists, when issuing the load order look for a checkbox "load subordinates" or something like that.
-
I know that's not something trivial to do (having done that for my work, you need migration procedures to convert old data into new data structures, etc.) but maintaining save game compatibility as much as possible across versions would be nice to have from now on. That's not only a convenience for us players, but if you think about it, having games that last would allow testing things that are rarely tested too. If a game must be restarted each time a major version is put out, then chances are that a few things (like multiple large NPR empires) will never be properly evaluated. Or the 'end game', with the last techs.
-
Will the replacement code try to replace 1 lost unit with another unit, or does it try to match tonnage?
Number of units. If you need fewer units, set the replacement formation template to have fewer units.
-
I know that's not something trivial to do (having done that for my work, you need migration procedures to convert old data into new data structures, etc.) but maintaining save game compatibility as much as possible across versions would be nice to have from now on. That's not only a convenience for us players, but if you think about it, having games that last would allow testing things that are rarely tested too. If a game must be restarted each time a major version is put out, then chances are that a few things (like multiple large NPR empires) will never be properly evaluated. Or the 'end game', with the last techs.
If I was working on Aurora full time or charging for the game, I would probably add this. However, with limited free time I tend to focus on fixing bugs or adding things I would use myself. It would use up a lot of that free time to try to create save game conversion programs, especially as each one would be different. Also, not much fun either :)
-
Fair points! Thanks for the rationale. :)
-
Say I have multiple formations all needing replacements on the same body. How will the game determine what order to distribute those replacements?
I assume there is a priority setting, but what about when that setting is equal? I would think replacements should be handed out evenly but it could be good to have them be weighted such that more damaged formations receive more replacements, so all formations are fully manned at about the same time.
-
Say I have multiple formations all needing replacements on the same body. How will the game determine what order to distribute those replacements?
I assume there is a priority setting, but what about when that setting is equal? I would think replacements should be handed out evenly but it could be good to have them be weighted such that more damaged formations receive more replacements, so all formations are fully manned at about the same time.
Im assuming that its either random or top-down from the list in that case. It is an important case for Steve to consider though
-
Say I have multiple formations all needing replacements on the same body. How will the game determine what order to distribute those replacements?
I assume there is a priority setting, but what about when that setting is equal? I would think replacements should be handed out evenly but it could be good to have them be weighted such that more damaged formations receive more replacements, so all formations are fully manned at about the same time.
There is a priority setting for each formation. If you want one formation to receive reinforcements first, increase the priority. Formations with the same priority setting will be chosen in a random order.
-
One thing that would be nice for moving ground combat units with a detailed OOB, would be an order to load the parent formation + the children. For example: If you load a division, this order would also load the brigades, battalions, companies, etc. that are subordinate to the division. This would save a lot of clicking for large, detailed formations.
This already exists, when issuing the load order look for a checkbox "load subordinates" or something like that.
Thanks. I've been loading one click at a time because I missed the checkbox.
-
These are two similar changes so I will post both here. On the Commander's tab, academies are called by there planet name. Earth academy, Alpha Centauri academy, etc. I have several academies that are named, and are similar in function. There is, for example, my Maneuver Warfare Studies Institute, and my Artillery Combat School. The problem is, when looking at the Commander's tab, is which is on which planet. I suggest that if an academy is named, that it's name should appear on the Commander's tab instead of the planet's name.
Also, on the Commander's tab, I have 3 Comet #1. 2 of the are orbital mining and 1 is automated mining. However, without assigning an administrator, and then looking on the summary tab, I can't tell one Comet #1 from the others. I would recommend including the system name with asteroids and comets on the Commander's tab so that you can tell which is which.
-
Also, on the Commander's tab, I have 3 Comet #1. 2 of the are orbital mining and 1 is automated mining. However, without assigning an administrator, and then looking on the summary tab, I can't tell one Comet #1 from the others. I would recommend including the system name with asteroids and comets on the Commander's tab so that you can tell which is which.
On the first tab of the econ window you have a "Rename Pop" button. This is very useful for comets (and asteroids) for the reason you say--otherwise some will have matching names.
-
Also, on the Commander's tab, I have 3 Comet #1. 2 of the are orbital mining and 1 is automated mining. However, without assigning an administrator, and then looking on the summary tab, I can't tell one Comet #1 from the others. I would recommend including the system name with asteroids and comets on the Commander's tab so that you can tell which is which.
On the first tab of the econ window you have a "Rename Pop" button. This is very useful for comets (and asteroids) for the reason you say--otherwise some will have matching names.
I am aware of this, but I don't change the names of comets or asteroids as they are only inhabited for mining (at least for now). But even if you changed the names of comets and asteroids, that still leaves the problem of multiple military academies. Seeing their name rather than planet would be useful.
-
Also, on the Commander's tab, I have 3 Comet #1. 2 of the are orbital mining and 1 is automated mining. However, without assigning an administrator, and then looking on the summary tab, I can't tell one Comet #1 from the others. I would recommend including the system name with asteroids and comets on the Commander's tab so that you can tell which is which.
On the first tab of the econ window you have a "Rename Pop" button. This is very useful for comets (and asteroids) for the reason you say--otherwise some will have matching names.
I am aware of this, but I don't change the names of comets or asteroids as they are only inhabited for mining (at least for now). But even if you changed the names of comets and asteroids, that still leaves the problem of multiple military academies. Seeing their name rather than planet would be useful.
Renaming the population does not change the name of the body.
You could just append the name of the system so that you can tell them apart when assigning administrators.
And no, this doesn't solve the problem for military academies.
-
Body and colony names are now separate. One is named through the System View Window (F9) and the other is named through the Colony Economy Window (F2).
-
Is there any schedule as to when v1.12 is going to be released?
-
Bearing in mind that I don't understand the tradeoffs here, if its relatively easy to drop a release and then keep playing/adding things, that would be pretty neat.
-
Bearing in mind that I don't understand the tradeoffs here, if its relatively easy to drop a release and then keep playing/adding things, that would be pretty neat.
Aurora doesn't often allow that unfortunately. The issue is that many (most?) updates Steve makes to the game require changes in the AuroraDB file, so every time that database needs changing it immediately breaks all save compatibility with previous versions. There are some updates that are only code changes, so only affect Aurora.exe, and those can be released and will be save compatible. That's what the third number in the version represents - e.g. when we had 1.9.5, the ".5" part was used to show that it was only a change to the executable and so was save game compatible with other 1.9.* versions.
-
Is there any schedule as to when v1.12 is going to be released?
No, I don't have a fixed date. I still need to test the formation and replacement changes and go through the bugs list. How long depends on my free time and we've been busy lately. I was away four nights over the weekend in the motorhome for example.
-
Is there any schedule as to when v1.12 is going to be released?
No, I don't have a fixed date. I still need to test the formation and replacement changes and go through the bugs list. How long depends on my free time and we've been busy lately. I was away four nights over the weekend in the motorhome for example.
Hi Steve, quick off-topic, just discovered enough surprisingly that Isle of Man and Sicily (the place where I come from) have the same flag :P
Now, as you probably know, Sicily is synonymous of Mafia, if you do not release the 1.12 ASAP, Im gonna send some of my bad guys over there to speed up the thing 8)
Im joking man, enjoy the motor home, hope to visit your place soon (for real, already pressing my gf).
-
Exciting changes, can't wait for it!
-
Rakhas Generation Change
in V1.11, Rakhas need to be within a temperature band about a hundred degrees wide, some oxygen, no dangerous gases, available water, high accessibility minerals and no ruins. The chance of them appearing is based on a random number generated from 1-8. If that is higher than total accessibility, with Duranium counting double, they are generated.
That is proving to be a very difficult combination. Mainly because a lot of accessible minerals don't tend to appear on planets that meet the other requirements and water is often not present.
Umm... wouldn't having their chance of generating roll needing to be Higher that the total accessibility favor low accessibility worlds? If total accessibility was greater than 8, they couldn't generate on a 1-8 roll. I realize you changed them for 1.12, but if it was coded roll>accessibility, it sounds like it wasn't working as intended. Agree that needing water & no dangerous gases really cut down potential for them though.
-
Rakhas Generation Change
in V1.11, Rakhas need to be within a temperature band about a hundred degrees wide, some oxygen, no dangerous gases, available water, high accessibility minerals and no ruins. The chance of them appearing is based on a random number generated from 1-8. If that is higher than total accessibility, with Duranium counting double, they are generated.
That is proving to be a very difficult combination. Mainly because a lot of accessible minerals don't tend to appear on planets that meet the other requirements and water is often not present.
Umm... wouldn't having their chance of generating roll needing to be Higher that the total accessibility favor low accessibility worlds? If total accessibility was greater than 8, they couldn't generate on a 1-8 roll. I realize you changed them for 1.12, but if it was coded roll>accessibility, it sounds like it wasn't working as intended. Agree that needing water & no dangerous gases really cut down potential for them though.
It was lower. Mistake in text rather than code.
-
Could spoiler generation rates in general be boosted or made adjustable? I've only seen precursors twice since C# was released, and swarm once
-
Could spoiler generation rates in general be boosted or made adjustable? I've only seen precursors twice since C# was released, and swarm once
Wow! I have seen the Precursors every serious campaign game (4 games) I have played, often within 3-4 jumps from Earth. I use to stabilize jump points with only a cursory look on the other side and had to stop doing it because the precursor ships would just start rolling up colonies and infrastructure up the chain. I've only run into the Swarm once though.
-
Could spoiler generation rates in general be boosted or made adjustable? I've only seen precursors twice since C# was released, and swarm once
Wow! I have seen the Precursors every serious campaign game (4 games) I have played, often within 3-4 jumps from Earth. I use to stabilize jump points with only a cursory look on the other side and had to stop doing it because the precursor ships would just start rolling up colonies and infrastructure up the chain. I've only run into the Swarm once though.
Same. I've never had an issue finding precursor ships.
-
New 'Load All Minerals Until Full' Move Order
I've added a new movement order called 'Load All Minerals Until Full'. This is exactly the same as the Load All Minerals order except that the same order will remain until the fleet's cargo capacity is full. Reserve levels will be observed for this order.
In mechanics terms, when the loading timer runs down to zero the order is completed if the cargo capacity is full. If not, the fleet movement ends for the sub-pulse and the loading clock is reset. The cycle repeats until the cargo holds are full.
This will allow players to set up freighter runs to bring minerals from outlying colonies without micromanagement or fuel waste.
I'd like to see this for fuel too... for setting up fuel tanker runs to the harvesters
-
I think either when 1.12 comes out or now with 1.11 Steve should update the "full installation" post. Currently it is still on 1.5.1 which not only is way behind but also 1.11 is quite stable. That way people who are new to the forum don't accidentally think that 1.5.1 is the newest.
-
With the addition of anchor fleets, I'm hoping that Steve will add the ability for fleets to be subordinated to flag bridges so an admiral in their flagship can have command of multiple different task forces in the same system.
-
I wonder if we can set a minimum range for missile PD. I want my AMM defense focus on "fresh" incoming salvos, let Area PD handle reduced salvos.
-
I wonder if we can set a minimum range for missile PD. I want my AMM defense focus on "fresh" incoming salvos, let Area PD handle reduced salvos.
Yes... this has been suggested many times and something I hope will be added at some point to reduce waste of missile point defence for something that beam PD and shields can handle. Probably should add it to the suggestion thread as well...
-
Wow, the weather on the Isle of Man must be dreadful today. Thanks Steve!
-
Wow, the weather on the Isle of Man must be dreadful today. Thanks Steve!
:)
-
Wow, the weather on the Isle of Man must be dreadful today. Thanks Steve!
:)
What update did I miss????
-
What update did I miss????
I fixed a few bugs yesterday.
- Fixed 'Object reference' bug when gaining tech points to complete a non-active research project.
- Added code to prevent creation of comets with very small Orbital Distance to prevent a very rare but serious bug.
- Fixed display bug that showed wrong 'Refit Overhead' cost in Refit Details display.
- Ships with cargo shuttles can now load maintenance supply from a colony without needing a cargo shuttle station or a maintenance facility.
- A refit will adjust the amount of ordnance on a ship if the new design has insufficient capacity to hold them. Any excess ordnance will be offloaded to the population.
- Maintenance failures will only be checked against components that can fail, in order to avoid the maintenance explosion bug for carriers, fuel tankers, etc..
- Delete Empty Populations will not delete populations that have mineral stockpiles.
- Fixed bug that displayed 'Unknown Class' in wreck salvage event when salvaging own ships.
- You can no longer add spinal weapons of different types to the same design.
- Stations with 'No Armour' no longer function with a single armour layer in combat.
- In v.1.11, command and control systems are treated as a single tech line for disassembly, so CIC might give points for AUX. In v1.12, all C&C systems are treated individually.
- Fixed bug in Required Power field in Ship Design Display tab on Naval Organization window.
- Repairing a ship will now clear the damage control queue
- Deleting an admin command will now unassign any assigned commander.
- Fixed a bug where beginning an overhaul at a fleet (rather than a colony) caused the overhauling fleet to stop in space while the system body moved on.
- Fixed the moon-numbering bug for gas giants that also have Trojan asteroids.
- When choosing the "Scrap" options for a shipyard, you can no longer choose civilian ships
- Ground-based and buoy-based geological surveys now use the game-level survey speed modifier.
- Fixed a bug with scrapping that returned full wealth and minerals, plus components.
-
I fixed a few bugs yesterday.
A "few" he says. Awesome to see some more progress on 1.12
Hopefully a "few" more bad weather days to help it keep going...
-
Is the bug that prevent fleet form moving when the reaction bonus over flow will be fix in the 1.12 update?
-
I wanted to forward a question that was asked recently to this thread:
In the recent Changelog post, you said:
When replacements are required, the replacement process will use the Unit Series of each unit in the Replacement Template, rather than the actual unit.
By "when replacements are required," does that mean that it will only update lost units to the new type, or will intact units be replaced automatically, too?
For instance, in your Chimera example, you have a formation with the Mk II, and the latest version is the Mk IV. If you created a new formation with Mk IVs and set it to provide replacements for the formation with Mk IIs, would it immediately remove the Mk IIs and reequip with Mk IVs, or would the original formation keep the Mk IIs until they were lost in action, at which point the lost units would be gradually replaced by Mk IVs?
This is the main source of micro that I've noticed in my games; I hope it will be automated.
In case its not clear, this question is asking about the possibility of auto-upgrade as opposed to auto-replenish.
-
Regarding the 1.12.1 change:
except that on successful repair a number of armour boxes equal to the armour strength will be repaired (within the scope of the rule below).
Armour will be repaired from the most damaged columns first. No more than one armour point in a single column will be repaired per increment.
So, if you have an armor strength of 6 (6 thickness) it'll repair damage in up to six armor columns? Am I imagining that right in the attached picture?
-
Regarding the 1.12.1 change:
except that on successful repair a number of armour boxes equal to the armour strength will be repaired (within the scope of the rule below).
Armour will be repaired from the most damaged columns first. No more than one armour point in a single column will be repaired per increment.
So, if you have an armor strength of 6 (6 thickness) it'll repair damage in up to six armor columns? Am I imagining that right in the attached picture?
Yes, that's correct.
-
Regarding the 1.12.1 change:
except that on successful repair a number of armour boxes equal to the armour strength will be repaired (within the scope of the rule below).
Armour will be repaired from the most damaged columns first. No more than one armour point in a single column will be repaired per increment.
So, if you have an armor strength of 6 (6 thickness) it'll repair damage in up to six armor columns? Am I imagining that right in the attached picture?
Yes, that's correct.
Looking at that again, I think I now need another clarification - is the "armor strength" value here the number of layers of armor on the ship, as Zap0 has it, or the value specified by the tech level of the armor being used?
-
Does the 'load until full' order make sure to load at least some of every mineral present on the planet? I'd hate to have a situation where all I'm getting from my mining colony with all resources is duranium cuz it mines so much of it.
-
Does the 'load until full' order make sure to load at least some of every mineral present on the planet? I'd hate to have a situation where all I'm getting from my mining colony with all resources is duranium cuz it mines so much of it.
No it does not and is the main reason why I find myself not using it as much. Generally speaking if you are setting up a regular transport order you want to make enough freighting capacity so that the colonies entire production is being transported. Otherwise you will have the problem you described.
Alternatively you can use order templates and make one using the "Load mineral type when X available" in order to set up a scheme for transporting all types of mineral. It helps if your freighters cargo capacity is a multiple of 11 as there are 11 types of mineral.
-
Does the required resolutions are still the same? And if so, is there any prevision to when Steve will fix that?
-
The resolutions will change if and when steve buys new monitors :).
AuroraMod was, I believe, updated for 1.12 and supports some screen resolution stuff as I understand it. I've never used it.
-
They will only change upwards as well - Steve already has monitors with resolutions well above 1920 x 1080. It is extremely unlikely that he will ever change Aurora so that it works with smaller than the 1440 x 900 resolution.
-
Are there plans to create a way to save formation templates made out of multiple smaller formations?
For instance, I'd like to be able to save an Infantry Regiment template made out of 3 Infantry Battalion templates and 1 Support Battalion template which are themselves made up of 4 Company Templates.
I feel like this is the most pressing functionality that needs to be added now that its easier to upgrade and replenish formation.
-
I feel like this is the most pressing functionality that needs to be added now that its easier to
Easier to what?
Regardless if it makes you feel better suggestions along the same lines have been made before on the suggestion thread.
-
This comment is in reference to the 1.13 change logs regarding the new railguns:
Does this also work with the advanced railguns tech?
-
This comment is in reference to the 1.13 change logs regarding the new railguns:
Does this also work with the advanced railguns tech?
Yes, it will do.