Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441793 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Britich

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • B
  • Posts: 20
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #75 on: July 31, 2016, 05:15:54 AM »
For instance, a science "officer" should only be attached to the ship if it has a grav or geo sensor and should be grabbed from the scientist pool rather than the officers. A ship with a habitation modual should have a civilian administrator pulled from that pool. A ship with a hangar should have a CAG.

I love this idea.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #76 on: August 01, 2016, 08:14:05 PM »
If ships are going to have multiple officers then their should be more default ranks that encompass more than just command and flag officers. This will also mean changes to the promotion and officer recruitment rates settings to take into account the increased number of ranks that need to be filled out.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2016, 11:59:52 AM »
If ships are going to have multiple officers then their should be more default ranks that encompass more than just command and flag officers. This will also mean changes to the promotion and officer recruitment rates settings to take into account the increased number of ranks that need to be filled out.

I'd have to vote against anything that is likely to increase officer micro-management. I think this is one of those things where there is a conflict between a 4x empire management and a ship or fleet based combat simulator. I love the concept of assigning junior officers to increase battle rp, but I fear what that mechanism would become when I have scores of ships to manage across an empire.  I dread the thought of hundreds (or thousands) more junior officers cluttering up the game, spamming messages and eating my time.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2016, 07:39:56 PM »
Me, too. I think the furthest we should be going is adding a bridge-tier that allows you to have a first officers, and a component that allows a scientist or a politician to be assigned to the ship, adding his skills to the ship where it applies (maybe make it a civilian-only component). The latter would be useful on exploration vessels and on stations that have maintenance or mining/terraforming modules. As for adding whole new classes of officers? No. Absolutely not.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #79 on: August 02, 2016, 09:28:30 PM »
I'd have to vote against anything that is likely to increase officer micro-management. I think this is one of those things where there is a conflict between a 4x empire management and a ship or fleet based combat simulator. I love the concept of assigning junior officers to increase battle rp, but I fear what that mechanism would become when I have scores of ships to manage across an empire.  I dread the thought of hundreds (or thousands) more junior officers cluttering up the game, spamming messages and eating my time.
Mainly I just want junior officers so they can pilot my fighters. Nothing like your Fleet Admiral leading a bombing sortie only to get blown to pieces...

Honestly, this could be fixed by making fighters not have to be piloted by any named person.

And they aren't a new class of officers I'm asking for just more default ranks of officers with an increased officer recruitment/promotion rank to support it.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 09:30:03 PM by BasileusMaximos »
 

Offline TheDOC

  • Registered
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • T
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #80 on: August 13, 2016, 05:36:21 PM »
I don't know if this has been posted before but how about giving planets and celestial bodies a maximum population? I'm ok with not applying a limit to planets bigger than the earth, but an asteroid surely can't get up to big numbers such as billions.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #81 on: August 16, 2016, 10:17:29 AM »
I don't know if this has been posted before but how about giving planets and celestial bodies a maximum population? I'm ok with not applying a limit to planets bigger than the earth, but an asteroid surely can't get up to big numbers such as billions.

That's what infrastructure is for.

But I can see a population density factor coming into play.

Offline NuclearStudent

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #82 on: August 16, 2016, 01:57:39 PM »
On the topic of shipping lines, I would like to be able to ban civilians from passing through systems.  It's not something that can be done with AuroraV6, but I hope it would be doable with AuroraC#.  Them civvies keep giving away the locations of my secret colonies. 

 
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #83 on: August 16, 2016, 03:32:11 PM »
Yes, being able to ban civilians from even entering a system should be possible. This should also prevent CMCs from forming in that system.
 

Offline Kytuzian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • K
  • Posts: 132
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #84 on: August 16, 2016, 07:27:20 PM »
On the topic of shipping lines, I would like to be able to ban civilians from passing through systems.  It's not something that can be done with AuroraV6, but I hope it would be doable with AuroraC#.  Them civvies keep giving away the locations of my secret colonies.

In addition to banning civ ships, I'd like to be able to make my own ships prefer to route around a particular system. Mostly because in the current game of Aurora that I'm running with my friends, I want to have one of my aliens set up a colony in a system, but the most efficient way to get there is through Sol--which is not really an option because they could easily destroy the commercial ships as they pass through, and if I sent warships with them there'd be a battle every single time they pass through the system, which would slow the progress of the game to a crawl.
 

Offline TheDOC

  • Registered
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • T
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #85 on: August 17, 2016, 11:36:13 AM »
That's what infrastructure is for.

But I can see a population density factor coming into play.

Fact is, it happens also with very small planets. I have seen a planet with 0.11 G going up to 3 Billion in a game, and that makes no sense. As you said, a pop density factor influencing growth so that earth doesn't get to 50 Billion with many TN races at the beginning would be very appreciated.
This comes from personal experience due to running multiplayer campaigns and 15 Billion pop earth in 10 years is strange to say the least.

A bit of OT now, sorry for that:

I gotta give a thumbs up to steve for keeping up the great work he's always done and for the incredible regularity with which he works on the project.
Also, while i didn't know much about VB6, i've got a decent knowledge of C# so if there ever is the need i would be happy to help.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #86 on: August 17, 2016, 05:29:46 PM »
Same, though its my understanding he isn't interested in outside help.
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Gold Supporter
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 19 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #87 on: August 18, 2016, 11:09:11 AM »
Quote from: BasileusMaximos link=topic=8497. msg95364#msg95364 date=1470191310
Mainly I just want junior officers so they can pilot my fighters.  Nothing like your Fleet Admiral leading a bombing sortie only to get blown to pieces. . .

Honestly, this could be fixed by making fighters not have to be piloted by any named person. 

And they aren't a new class of officers I'm asking for just more default ranks of officers with an increased officer recruitment/promotion rank to support it.

Gave this a bit of thought, Why not have fighters not have officers, but have fighter squadrons have a squadron leader who's a named officer, passes their bonuses onto fighters in their squadron.  Whenever a fighter gets killed, roll a chance of the officer having been aboard that fighter.  Fighters outside of squadrons can be explained as having no lead officer due to the lack of organization implied by not being on a squadron.
 

Offline NuclearStudent

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #88 on: August 18, 2016, 01:29:01 PM »
There's a few things I like to make leader management a bit easier.

Most important, to me, is that I'd like a log that keeps track of retired/KIA officers.  I'm thinking about the Memorial feature in XCOM.  I imagine a sheet where you can see names, final ranks, and medals given. 

It would be nice if the player could set conditions for a medal to be automatically assigned.  Like, if a naval officer is on a ship and the ship destroys a ship, the naval officer gets [MEDAL_NAME_HERE].  Right now, as far as I can tell, Medals all have to be given manually, which is a lot of micro.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #89 on: August 25, 2016, 04:24:56 AM »
Keeping track of deceased and retired officers along with their service records would bee good. It'll help me name my destroyer and frigate sized ships, as the USN does today.

I'd also like it if the layout of the systems we know about in our immediate area were as fleshed out as the Sol system, but that is probably asking too much.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry