Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 448956 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #105 on: September 15, 2016, 12:30:35 PM »
A suggestion for C#: For storytelling reasons it might be interesting to be able to transfer minerals from one nation to another via a regular cargo transport (for example if you want to create a pirate "Subnation"). At the moment it is not possible to transfer minerals to other nations; maybe allowing transfer to nations who are allied to you would do the trick.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #106 on: September 15, 2016, 06:53:00 PM »
A suggestion for C#: For storytelling reasons it might be interesting to be able to transfer minerals from one nation to another via a regular cargo transport (for example if you want to create a pirate "Subnation"). At the moment it is not possible to transfer minerals to other nations; maybe allowing transfer to nations who are allied to you would do the trick.
At the very least, you could currently theoretically be able to do so by making a "mineral exchange shuttle" which you exchange ownership of, having it be a ship with cargo space and nothing else (no engines or anything), and fill up on the minerals prior to the agreement.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #107 on: September 18, 2016, 03:24:05 AM »
Yes, I am doing something like that  :)
 

Offline GeaXle

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #108 on: September 19, 2016, 03:00:42 PM »
Hi Steve, I am really looking forward this C# version of Aurora.

I was wondering if maybe suggestion should be made here now?

Anyway, would it be possible to get an option to assign our freighter to the civies? Or that freighter order consume civilian contracts? For example, I set up loads of supply and demand contract to shuffle instalations around. But sometimes as the civilians aren't moving things fast enough, I order my freighters to move the goods and it messes up the supply and demand contract I have done. Maybe if the contract were consumed by my freighters, or if I could have a toggle that civilians will give orders to my freighter as they see fit, it would be very helpful.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #109 on: September 25, 2016, 10:09:12 PM »
I realize this might be a pretty big one, but any chance if you try to drop a sub fleet into a fleet at a different location it gives you a "Order this fleet to move to target location and join the destination fleet?" popup?

Strictly a quality of life thing, so if it would be a large coding job it might work better as a feature for a future version.
 

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 #110 on: September 26, 2016, 10:51:05 AM »
I realize this might be a pretty big one, but any chance if you try to drop a sub fleet into a fleet at a different location it gives you a "Order this fleet to move to target location and join the destination fleet?" popup?

Strictly a quality of life thing, so if it would be a large coding job it might work better as a feature for a future version.

This made me think of the 4 jump limit on civvies and auto-calculated fight paths.  Any chance that limit could be extended?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11666
  • Thanked: 20428 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #111 on: September 26, 2016, 03:00:14 PM »
This made me think of the 4 jump limit on civvies and auto-calculated fight paths.  Any chance that limit could be extended?

That limit was already removed in VB6 Aurora. It is now unlimited.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11666
  • Thanked: 20428 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #112 on: September 26, 2016, 03:00:45 PM »
I realize this might be a pretty big one, but any chance if you try to drop a sub fleet into a fleet at a different location it gives you a "Order this fleet to move to target location and join the destination fleet?" popup?

Strictly a quality of life thing, so if it would be a large coding job it might work better as a feature for a future version.

Should be possible - just need to remember to do it now :)
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2790
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #113 on: September 26, 2016, 04:31:39 PM »
Oh, that would be swell!
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #114 on: September 27, 2016, 05:02:47 PM »
So you can break off  sub fleets to join other fleets?

Also speaking of freighters have you touched the civilian economy at all to make it more sophisticated/helpful?

For instance, you could have it so there are civilian shipyards where the freighters get their ships from and you can contract to build some of your stuff.  Or you have mining companies which gather resources for you so you don't have to or research institutes that have a chance or researching technology for you.

Having mechanisms to control or encourage private industries would be cool to, like only giving out so many licences to build shipyards or giving one company a monopoly on a systems resources so they can develop it almost independently.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 05:10:27 PM by BasileusMaximos »
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #115 on: September 28, 2016, 07:11:22 AM »
That limit was already removed in VB6 Aurora. It is now unlimited.
I think I saw a message some time ago (in 7.1) where it told me that there is no ship within 4 jump points where the Auto-Refill (with maintenance) could be done.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #116 on: September 29, 2016, 01:17:02 AM »
It would be interesting if you made Marines more useful by giving every unit but them very high penalties for assaulting a planet where you have no ground presence, making them vital for establishing a "beachhead".

Speaking of, does the new organization system allow you to integrate ground units?

Also, what of corps and army HQ battalions and organizations?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 01:19:29 AM by BasileusMaximos »
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #117 on: September 29, 2016, 03:51:16 AM »
By the way, Steve, since you say you haven't done detections yet, I have taken multithreading in university and can throw some example code your way to show you how that is supposed to look if you like.  For turn-based stuff like aurora it should be extremely straightforward since there aren't really synchronization issues (you can just wait for all of the threads to complete without that breaking anything).
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #118 on: October 02, 2016, 05:33:57 PM »
Nice change. I've always thought ordinance transfer at least shouldn't be instant (it lets you do some pretty gamey stuff with colliers) but slower fuel transfer is good too. And it's not brutally slow; taking a few days to refuel a ship isn't going to be a huge problem outside of combat scenarios.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #119 on: October 02, 2016, 06:06:31 PM »
Best would ofcourse be if unloading and loading were separate actions in terms of time needed, so a ship that both unloads fully and loads fully needs 2x the time of a ship that just dumps it's full cargo load and goes away.