Change Log for v7.00 Discussion

[NihilRex (OP)]

Low Level Fleet Training
All combat vessels will slowly gain fleet training points even if they are not involved in training exercises. A combat vessel is defined as one with PPV > 0. During fleet training exercises the annual rate of points gained is the Crew Training Skill of the Task Force Commander plus the operations bonus of the Operations Staff Officer. So if the task force commander has crew training of 200 and the operations officer has an ops bonus of 30%, annual crew training points would be 260. This is further increased by the grade bonus of the ship being trained. A ship has to gain 500 training points to have 100% fleet training skill.

For low level training, which is assumed to be gained through general experience and perhaps simulators, the annual training rate is 30. This is also modified by crew grade. The low level training is to counter the issue of long-serving ships responding just as slowly as newly constructed ships if neither has had any fleet training. In reality, the long-serving crew should have some advantage in that situation even without formal training. Of course, fleet training still be far more effective in terms of creating crews that quickly respond to orders in combat situations.

Id like to see this implemented slightly differently -  I think a -%grade should result in a LOWERING of the ships training level by the same algorithm.

Something like
FTExercises = [(CST*(1+Opsbonus))]*[1+Grade]
Lowlevel = 0+[Grade*3]

This way, smegty captains will slowly erode good captains and admiral's efforts, just like real life.  I also think LLT shouldnt happen while in orbit of a colony.  Shoreleave and training dont mix very well.

[Steve Walmsley]

I considered having more rules about which ships received the low level training, such as only those that expended fuel for example. However, I decided to go with the more simple implementation for two reasons.

1) Whatever rule I come up with could probably be exploited, such as moving all ships a little every turn, and I didn't want players micromanaging that on the basis they would be suffering a disadvantage if they didn't. With this implementation, you don't need to worry about it - it happens gradually over time. You could explain it away with training simulators on the ships.

2) There would be an extra performance hit if I have to monitor and record what every ship does every increment on order to decide which ones receive the training.

With regard to the idea about weak commanders reducing training. Unfortunately that would also lead to micromanagement because players would want to ensure the commanders that could reduce training were not assigned to ships where training made a difference.

[NihilRex (OP)]

1) I was thinking that LLT would just check the in orbit of box, and not apply if the ship was in orbit of a colony.

2) Yeah, I could see that.  How about LLT only applies if TF Training is less than 10x grade?  So bogstandard 0%s give nothing, but an 8% auto trains his crew to 80%, and 10%+ will eventually reach 100?

[Haji]

As someone who never manages his officers (only administrators), to the point that I sometimes forget to assigned the task force commander, while also sending my forces for training (resulting in a lot of wasted time) I'm all for the low level training idea - the simple version made by Steve. There is a place for realism and complexity, but not in this case, at least not for me, as TF training is not important enough to slow down my game, by both higher CPU usage and more micromanagement.

[sloanjh]

Since this thread started the discussion on v6.50 changes, I've hijacked it (by changing the subject name) and stickied it.  Please discuss Steve's changes here rather than opening new threads - it'll keep the thread spam in Mechanics down.

John

[sublight]

Speaking of task force training and exploits: Have you considered changing the speed while TF training to 25% of the fastest ship in a group, with the TF training aborting/failing if the target speed is faster than the slowest group member?

[alex_brunius]

Does this low level training also works for ships in hangars? Ships under overhaul or shoreleave?

The main change to training I would like to see is Carriers requiring some small amount of extra fuel to train their parasite fighters.

TF Training is a good chance to spot errors in design so even if you risk a bit more micromanagement this mechanic would also provide a warning sign if you design a Carrier that is bringing to little fuel to launch a successful strike.

[Sloshmonger]

This will make PDC-based fighters so much more attractive to me, as I will no longer have to have a "training carrier" with no other purpose.

[Shipright]

I think this should bennies to something like a "Combat Compute" or "Tactical Simulator" component tha levels up with tech. Basically it's the ship AI getting smarter even in the crew decides to play XBox all day instead of training.

[Mel Vixen]

Wait in modern warfare playing X-box is training! Without skill on the controller you cant realy fly a drone!

edit: To say something substantial, the new training is a nice thing. I agree with shipright but would go so far and say a tech that would improve overall training and trainingtime would be nice.
Could be placed under the Logistics category and justified with better computers, communications, simulations, heck even best practices learnt over the years etc. 

Will it also apply to PDCs?

Also steve will you continue your current campaign with these changes or will there be a new one?

[Steve Walmsley]

Also steve will you continue your current campaign with these changes or will there be a new one?

Continuing at the moment. I have a very long update to post but just haven't got around to it yet.

Off to the Cotswolds next week for vacation then back home for 10 days then 12 nights in Vegas for another vacation so not much will happen with Aurora in the next month

[Hydrofoil]

Could you please please please sort some of the slow down that happens in the game I realise the limitations are the language you are coding in but im sure there is some streamlining that could be done here and there. I Think the Gameplay is pretty spot on for now and some user experience tweaks could be made.

[Sudragon2k3]

A minor adjustment to the mechanics of naming parts in the 'Create Research Project'... Would it be possible to have a check box to lock the 'building company' so you can enter a name and lock it to the part type? For example, so all your active sensors are 'Yoyodyne Scantech' but all your Engines are 'General Atomics' without having to type it in every time you open the window?

[letsdance]

if i set "NPR can create NPR" to zero, it will result in an empty universe since the AI will still explore but find nothing?

is it possible to set another creation chance once a human player enters a system (that does not contain a colony) for the first time (i guess this information is not tracked yet)? this chance could be the difference between human and NPR chance, to result in about the same chance (though the calculation is not correct from a statistical point of view) for creating NPRs, but only when it matters for me.

[alex_brunius]

if i set "NPR can create NPR" to zero, it will result in an empty universe since the AI will still explore but find nothing?

is it possible to set another creation chance once a human player enters a system (that does not contain a colony) for the first time (i guess this information is not tracked yet)? this chance could be the difference between human and NPR chance, to result in about the same chance (though the calculation is not correct from a statistical point of view) for creating NPRs, but only when it matters for me.

Seconding this request. Was about to suggest the same myself since I share the concern.