Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 345105 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ranged66

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • R
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #615 on: October 21, 2018, 12:13:48 PM »
Suggestion: possibility to make civilians haul minerals on contract too.

Suggestion 2: civilian mineral harvesters that go after comets/roids/moons.  We already have fuel harvesters so why not!
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #616 on: October 21, 2018, 02:25:42 PM »
Suggestion: Remove Refit costs associated with changing the size of space stations, as they don't have any armor that needs to be rebuilt.
This would make growing, sprawling space stations possible. At that point it would also be really cool if shipyards could be integrated into space stations, to make supermassive orbiting structures. (The yards would still need the population)
 
The following users thanked this post: space dwarf

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #617 on: October 21, 2018, 07:09:17 PM »
Suggestion 2: civilian mineral harvesters that go after comets/roids/moons.  We already have fuel harvesters so why not!
How would that differ from CMCs aside from the fact that instead of automines on a colony, there are asteroid miners on a colony?
 

Offline Dr. Toboggan

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • D
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #618 on: October 23, 2018, 01:02:12 PM »
Any possibility of the scrollwheel being usable in more windows?
 
The following users thanked this post: bro918, King-Salomon

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #619 on: October 23, 2018, 02:55:55 PM »
It would be nice to be able to replace a scientist on a project without having to cancel the research project...

canceling will delete the Queue too and replacing a Scientist (because of an error or a new one came up) is a pain in the a.. if you have set up a research queue for him...
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #620 on: October 23, 2018, 03:57:50 PM »
Being able to assign a 'replacement scientist' would be nice yes. If the head scientist dies while researching the same thing happens.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #621 on: October 23, 2018, 04:14:09 PM »
I hope the research system is redesigned at some point. It is way to linear and not that interesting as a mechanic at the present.

Technologies which boost industry, research and economy should work very different from engineering and theoretical development. I think labs should be dedicated to a certain field but you should be able to convert them at a lower cost.

Scientist bonuses should not be immediately applicable to research projects but accumulated over time so there is a real choice between long term and short term planning. Instead of administration being a restriction on number of labs it could be a faster growth of science bonuses or some such.

I certainly don't want this to happen before C# Aurora is launched but at least that it perhaps is considered in some way down the line. The current system are a bit "gamey", you can role-play some restrictions of course, the same with industry.

I would love for industry construction to behave in a similar way where you can make long term plans or short term investment. Sort of like production lines in HoI 4 with a gearing bonus towards different projects. If you produce lots of things of a specific item you will produce that thing more and more efficiently over time... up to a certain limit based on technology or engineering skills.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 12:53:58 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #622 on: October 24, 2018, 04:47:50 AM »
I hope the research system is redesigned at some point. It is way to linear and not that interesting as a mechanic at the present.

Technologies which boost industry, research and economy should work very different from engineering and theoretical development. I think labs should be dedicated to a certain field but you should be able to convert them at a lower cost.

Scientist bonuses should not be immediately applicable to research projects but accumulated over time so there is a real choice between long term and short term planning. Instead of administration being a restriction on number of labs it could be a faster growth of science bonuses or some such.

I certainly don't want this to happen before C# Aurora is launched but at least that it perhaps is considered in some way down the line. The current system are a bit "gamey", you can role-play some restrictions of course, the same with industry.

I would love for industry construction to behave in a similar way where you can make long term plans or short term investment. Sort of like production lines in HoI 4 with a gearing bonus towards different projects. If you produce lots of things of a specific item you will produce that thing more and more efficiently over time... up to a certain limit based on technology or engineering skills.

Yes this is something I would love as well in the far future.

I think Research and Industry construction could use similar mechanics. Basically start any new factory/lab at low efficiency (5-20%) and have them gradually, over some years build up proficiency in the area or category they work until a maximum of 100%

This means you want to make a long term plan that feels more realistic and resemble real limits rather than put 30/30 labs or 600/600 of your factories on a single project that you rush. It also means that you want to try to have some stuff building/researching in most categories in case you need something urgent from that category.

In fact I would much rather prefer if some of the leader bonuses ( which for Scientists can be massive ) is built into such a system rewarding long term planning and commitment into a tech field without getting lost because a random event decided it was time for that scientist to go.

HoI4 also have a diminishing returns built in here so that the first 10% of efficiency is gained much faster than the last 10% and that works really well to balance it out and reward very long term commitments.
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • s
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #623 on: October 24, 2018, 01:28:30 PM »
To be fair, Hoi 4 is using Grit-and-grease man-powered assembly lines instead of super-hightech space-age omnifactories that use physics-defying elements
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #624 on: October 24, 2018, 04:32:06 PM »
To be fair, Hoi 4 is using Grit-and-grease man-powered assembly lines instead of super-hightech space-age omnifactories that use physics-defying elements

So you mean in the future that experience and knowledge is not going to advance so efficiency rise over time? Every project you start will have all the kinks and problems already solved and fixed, that sound more like clairvoyance type stuff to me... ;)
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #625 on: October 24, 2018, 04:40:46 PM »
I hope the research system is redesigned at some point. It is way to linear and not that interesting as a mechanic at the present.

Technologies which boost industry, research and economy should work very different from engineering and theoretical development. I think labs should be dedicated to a certain field but you should be able to convert them at a lower cost.

Scientist bonuses should not be immediately applicable to research projects but accumulated over time so there is a real choice between long term and short term planning. Instead of administration being a restriction on number of labs it could be a faster growth of science bonuses or some such.

I certainly don't want this to happen before C# Aurora is launched but at least that it perhaps is considered in some way down the line. The current system are a bit "gamey", you can role-play some restrictions of course, the same with industry.

I would love for industry construction to behave in a similar way where you can make long term plans or short term investment. Sort of like production lines in HoI 4 with a gearing bonus towards different projects. If you produce lots of things of a specific item you will produce that thing more and more efficiently over time... up to a certain limit based on technology or engineering skills.

Yes this is something I would love as well in the far future.

I think Research and Industry construction could use similar mechanics. Basically start any new factory/lab at low efficiency (5-20%) and have them gradually, over some years build up proficiency in the area or category they work until a maximum of 100%

This means you want to make a long term plan that feels more realistic and resemble real limits rather than put 30/30 labs or 600/600 of your factories on a single project that you rush. It also means that you want to try to have some stuff building/researching in most categories in case you need something urgent from that category.

In fact I would much rather prefer if some of the leader bonuses ( which for Scientists can be massive ) is built into such a system rewarding long term planning and commitment into a tech field without getting lost because a random event decided it was time for that scientist to go.

HoI4 also have a diminishing returns built in here so that the first 10% of efficiency is gained much faster than the last 10% and that works really well to balance it out and reward very long term commitments.

I also don't see why the same efficiency system could not apply to shipyards as well. Every time you change a yard its efficiency lowers based on how much it need to change. If you change it to a completely different type of ships the efficiency goes down quite allot... if it is just a slight adjustment to an existing ship not so much. Over time efficiency rise to 100%.

This could have a realistic impact on ship design in a relatively easy and straight forward way. It will be way more expensive (or time consuming) to build highly specialized ships especially if they are large until you have a sufficiently large and advance economy.

I also think that efficiency should effect not only time but also cost of building things... so building allot of the same stuff should ultimately make it somewhat cheaper to produce... at least from a wealth perspective not necessarily resource perspective.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #626 on: October 24, 2018, 05:27:15 PM »
Actually, if historical production schedules are anything to go by?

You are likely to see the 'mass produced' ships, the small ships, to get regular design updates and irregular complete redesigns of the types of ships. Because these ships are produced in large enough numbers that such a standardized design is desirable and it's practical to update regularly. The medium size ships? That's the point where an entire class is designed and allocated all at once. Sure the entire class is standardized, and given the time it takes to go from design to ship if the entire class doesn't get constructed at once (it won't be) you're likely to see new builds using refined designs and newer equipment while their older siblings languish with older stuff until a fleet wide update program.

But the big ships?

Big ships are bespoke. All of them. The US build ten of its Nimitz class carriers, but it took from 1968 to 2006 to build all of them. Which means that basically every time a carrier was getting build the US had the time to look at what was working, what was not and redesigning and refining the Nimitz class with every new ship. You could make a decent argument that calling it the Nimitz class is mistaken as each ship could be considered a subclass of the design by the time the keels got laid down.


There's a point in production, especially when the R&D cycle is running fast, where creating a factory for serial production optimization is not profitable, because it takes too long to build even a single item to even consider producing a second with the same setup when it's already obsolete.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #627 on: October 24, 2018, 06:14:29 PM »
Actually, if historical production schedules are anything to go by?

You are likely to see the 'mass produced' ships, the small ships, to get regular design updates and irregular complete redesigns of the types of ships. Because these ships are produced in large enough numbers that such a standardized design is desirable and it's practical to update regularly. The medium size ships? That's the point where an entire class is designed and allocated all at once. Sure the entire class is standardized, and given the time it takes to go from design to ship if the entire class doesn't get constructed at once (it won't be) you're likely to see new builds using refined designs and newer equipment while their older siblings languish with older stuff until a fleet wide update program.

But the big ships?

Big ships are bespoke. All of them. The US build ten of its Nimitz class carriers, but it took from 1968 to 2006 to build all of them. Which means that basically every time a carrier was getting build the US had the time to look at what was working, what was not and redesigning and refining the Nimitz class with every new ship. You could make a decent argument that calling it the Nimitz class is mistaken as each ship could be considered a subclass of the design by the time the keels got laid down.


There's a point in production, especially when the R&D cycle is running fast, where creating a factory for serial production optimization is not profitable, because it takes too long to build even a single item to even consider producing a second with the same setup when it's already obsolete.

And that is the type of decision making I'm after. Do I build a good multi-purpose ship so I can keep updating it cheap or do I do for extreme specialization but suffer the efficiency when I need to swap out half the ship in one go.

Smaller ships have the benefit of having more an numerous yards and slipways so can still be built and upgraded relatively fast but you still suffer if you change their design too much and essentially make them new ships.

The reason why smaller ships are upgraded and change more is because they are cheaper and less complex. This will work same in Aurora if you keep their components decently small and not too specialized. In Aurora terms an upgrade of a sensor or a new engine is something rather different from most of the things we do to ships today. If ships engines was 25-30% of a ships weight today these would not be upgraded very often. That would be like upgrading the nuclear engine to a brand new one on a carrier for example, probably not very practical. Minor upgrades are too small for Aurora.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 06:17:43 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #628 on: October 24, 2018, 09:40:48 PM »
I could see a system of rnd-ing existing designs to a new variant that benefits at a loss (so not fully benefitting from) from say higher EM tech for sensors. Then you can retrofit existing ships to the new spec without huge retooling.  That would have to be it's whole own new feature though.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #629 on: October 25, 2018, 03:21:47 AM »
The retooling cost is intended to simulate the cost difference between building another ship of the same type, or designing a new class.