Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #480 on: January 08, 2017, 05:12:23 PM »
Just one thing on overpopulation, please give a thought to small asteroids/moons not constantly becoming overpopulated and filling the log with warnings about it. Would be nice to have a way to avoid without too much micromanagement. Maybe additional growth on them could automatically be transferred to the nearest planet or lowest colony cost population in the system causing the overpopulation there?

Once colonies reach max pop, they will stop growing. Growth rates start slowing at one third capacity. They will only become overcrowded if you transport colonists.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #481 on: January 08, 2017, 09:26:41 PM »
Maybe adding a tech line to represent super structures, hyper structures, city hives, floating cities, etc that provide a 20(30)(40)(etc)% bonus to maximum capacity. While I love there finally being a limit to populations, I also think that that final limit of 12 mil doesn't really take into account technological advances and such. I also took another look at the article, and it really didn't touch on population density that much. While one of the interactive charts told you the density of the country, they really didn't touch on the density of cities and regions that people are living in while still growing. I remember a video that touched on this, about how small a city could contain all currently living humans, and some cities that are flourishing have a population density multitudes greater than the total population per km those graphs gave.

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #482 on: January 08, 2017, 11:32:56 PM »
I was just about to watch that video. heh.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 292
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #483 on: January 09, 2017, 04:32:48 AM »
Rather than a new tech line, doesn't the Orbital Habitat Module already fill that purpose pretty perfectly? Just have their population capacity act additional to the body's limit.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #484 on: January 09, 2017, 06:11:45 AM »
Rather than a new tech line, doesn't the Orbital Habitat Module already fill that purpose pretty perfectly? Just have their population capacity act additional to the body's limit.
They act as infrastructure that you can tow into the orbit of a planet that can hold a certain amount of colonists no matter the colony cost.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Alucard

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • A
  • Posts: 24
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #485 on: January 09, 2017, 11:15:07 AM »
Can we get the option of radar-seeking missiles? In my opinion, it would help to force players to rely more on passive sensors as using active would put them at risk.    In the current version of the game, I find stealth ships not to be very powerfull in combat considering the costs to research and build them.   

EDIT: Sorry, I am not sure how I missed there being EM sensors option on missiles.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 11:08:12 AM by xhunterx »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #486 on: January 09, 2017, 11:34:02 AM »
Part of the problem with squeezing more people onto the same planet has to do with planetary carrying capacity. That is, how many people the planet can support with food.


Also, regarding radar seeking missiles, missiles with EM-sensors already perform this purpose.
 

Offline El Pip

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 165 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #487 on: January 09, 2017, 12:02:45 PM »
Also, regarding radar seeking missiles, missiles with EM-sensors already perform this purpose.
Not really. Or at least only under certain circumstances.

If your targets sits nice and still, then yes you can fire missiles with an EM warhead at a waypoint next to them and, when they arrive at the waypoint, they will home on the active emission.

But if the targets are moving at any speed you have to extrapolate their course, work out where your missile will intercept them in the future, and then hope you can place a waypoint at that location accurately enough for it to all work out, assuming all those sums are correct and the target doesn't change speed or course. Realistically it's not going to happen.

A proper radar seeking missile would be fired at a target you can only detect on EM sensors (i.e. you haven't got an active sensor in range) and home on that for as long as the enemy leaves their actives on.


Edit - I just did a quick test game to double check and the above is wrong. For a missile with a Thermal sensor you can fire it at a waypoint then, when it gets there, remove the waypoint, and the missile will find a new target and kill it.

Do the same with a missile with an EM sensor will just sit their confused, looking for a new target, but not finding one.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 12:20:22 PM by El Pip »
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #488 on: January 09, 2017, 12:07:32 PM »
I think that would require that the missile have a full shipboard EM sensor array in order to see the target.

e:  On the other hand, I guess fire control could guide the missiles until they are in acquisition range?
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #489 on: January 09, 2017, 01:13:05 PM »
EM sensors on missiles should work as radar seeking as NPRs have shot down my scout frigates that had actives running with missiles when there were no enemy active sensors in the entire system.

Can we get the option of radar-seeking missiles? In my opinion, it would help to force players to rely more on passive sensors as using active would put them at risk.   In the current version of the game, I find stealth ships not to be very powerful in combat considering the costs to research and build them. 
Not the right place to ask this. And stealth ships are pretty strong and one of the more viable options in this game.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 01:20:16 PM by 83athom »
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #490 on: January 09, 2017, 02:06:00 PM »
I actually rather like the idea of orbital habitats increasing the maximum population, if that's doable. Even if you're unlikely to need to get Earth over 12 billion, increasing the max would also boost the growth rate (assuming >4 billion), which is a cool use for the habitats.

Also there's just some delicious flavor value in having a mega hive world Earth with 30 billion people due to massive orbital habitats.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #491 on: January 09, 2017, 02:43:56 PM »
I actually rather like the idea of orbital habitats increasing the maximum population, if that's doable. Even if you're unlikely to need to get Earth over 12 billion, increasing the max would also boost the growth rate (assuming >4 billion), which is a cool use for the habitats.

Also there's just some delicious flavor value in having a mega hive world Earth with 30 billion people due to massive orbital habitats.

Orbital habitats already increase the max population. The capacity limit only applies to the non-orbital population.

Also, I think I will add a modifier to max capacity on a species level so that certain species can accept higher densities (hive minds, etc.).
 
The following users thanked this post: palu

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #492 on: January 09, 2017, 03:54:54 PM »
I need better names for Safe Greenhouse Gas and Anti-Greenhouse Gas :)

Any suggestions welcome - either existing gases with no harmful side-effects (couldn't find any) or Aurora-style names for new gases.
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #493 on: January 09, 2017, 04:11:19 PM »
I need better names for Safe Greenhouse Gas and Anti-Greenhouse Gas :)

Any suggestions welcome - either existing gases with no harmful side-effects (couldn't find any) or Aurora-style names for new gases.

Aestusium (based on Latin for heat)
Frigusium (based on Latin for cool)

Adam.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #494 on: January 09, 2017, 04:33:11 PM »
Aestusium (based on Latin for heat)
Frigusium (based on Latin for cool)

Adam.

Good suggestion! I like that a lot better than what I have now. I'm using this unless someone comes up with a better idea :)