Author Topic: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion  (Read 135735 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #240 on: March 15, 2016, 11:26:47 AM »
But its not a good way to flash out suggestions over time, and we can always post a link to it in the main thread.
My rule of thumb is that if it's a fairly simple change, it goes in the main suggestion thread.  If I'm proposing a fundamental overhaul of some game mechanic and the suggestion is going to be three pages of text and provoke a 200-post discussion, it gets its own thread.  This one definitely should have gone in the main suggestion thread.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #241 on: March 16, 2016, 07:26:33 AM »
My rule of thumb is that if it's a fairly simple change, it goes in the main suggestion thread.  If I'm proposing a fundamental overhaul of some game mechanic and the suggestion is going to be three pages of text and provoke a 200-post discussion, it gets its own thread.  This one definitely should have gone in the main suggestion thread.

Exactly.

And if you do put it in a side thread, please add a reference post (with a link) to the main thread.  Again, this is Steve's request - he uses the main threads as "filing cabinets", and once he's read a particular post (so that it is no longer flagged as new), he has trouble finding side-thread posts when he's reviewing things before a release (potentially months later).  Having more side threads only makes things worse.

John
 

Offline Gump

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • G
  • Posts: 28
Re: Repairing Titans
« Reply #242 on: March 26, 2016, 06:45:55 AM »
Quote
2) Titans are transported in the Titan Bay, a special type of module for ships similar to a troop transport bay.

Quote
5) Titans do not recover hit points in the same way that ground units recover readiness. Instead they are automatically repaired in Titan Bays using maintenance supplies at a rate of 1 HP per day (1 HP costs 1 MSP), as long as MSP are available.

Does this mean Titans can only be repaired within the ships that transport them?  It would be odd not to be able to repair them when they are on a planet with MSP and not involved in combat, or atleast on a planets where Titans can be built.
 

Offline littleWolf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #243 on: March 26, 2016, 09:07:17 AM »
I think, PDC can contain Titan Bay modules .
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #244 on: March 27, 2016, 03:26:40 PM »
Unless Steve says otherwise, PDCs will be able to have Titan Bay modules, since they can have hangars as well.
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #245 on: March 28, 2016, 04:02:38 PM »
Please Steve make a disable checkbox for Titans!
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Noble713

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • N
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #246 on: March 29, 2016, 09:38:00 AM »
Please Steve make a disable checkbox for Titans!

When first mentioned, I thought "well....I won't be building those", but now that you mention it, I don't want them appearing in my games in NPR hands either. So I have to 2nd this request for a "Disallow Titans" checkbox.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #247 on: March 29, 2016, 10:03:42 AM »
What's the issue with the NPR using them?
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #248 on: March 29, 2016, 10:12:29 AM »
What's the issue with the NPR using them?
Its more of a thing of people not wanting big stomping robots decimating the surface of worlds across the sectors. I also think its a case of the balance of how many the NPRs will build. Either they will make too many and cripple their economy/industry, or they will build too few and be steamrolled by other NPRs/Players who have a good amount.
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 Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #249 on: March 29, 2016, 11:16:24 AM »
At the moment, NPRs don't have them. If I add them for NPRs, I will add the disable option as well.
 
The following users thanked this post: boggo2300

Offline Noble713

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • N
  • Posts: 51
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #250 on: April 01, 2016, 06:25:49 AM »
Its more of a thing of people not wanting big stomping robots decimating the surface of worlds across the sectors.

This. Aurora is largely a "hard SF" game engine (IMO). Giant mecha, which are one of the least efficient/realistic types of ground combat machinery, seriously break my hard SF immersion. But I can see the appeal for other gamers who want to get their Battletech/Warhammer 40,000/Gundam fix.
 

Offline Culise

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #251 on: April 01, 2016, 07:42:16 AM »
The balance definitely makes sense, but I wonder if there is anything in the hard crunch revealed so far that requires them to be bipedal mecha.     Could they be refluffed for specific settings as heavy AFVs/bolos/ogres/etc. ?  Admittedly, I suppose there are some issues with bolos as well, hard-SF-wise, but they make more sense than walking death bots for harder settings. 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 07:44:04 AM by Culise »
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • R
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #252 on: April 01, 2016, 09:31:50 AM »
The balance definitely makes sense, but I wonder if there is anything in the hard crunch revealed so far that requires them to be bipedal mecha.     Could they be refluffed for specific settings as heavy AFVs/bolos/ogres/etc. ?  Admittedly, I suppose there are some issues with bolos as well, hard-SF-wise, but they make more sense than walking death bots for harder settings.

I would imagine that is what the rename function will do as it already does for ground units and space. So you decide you have a civilization that delved down the route of biotech and now want to have a mutated giant anteater that breaths fire? No problem just rename your heavy assault brigade to "Dragon corps" The sheer genius of Aurora is the fact it has almost zero GUI and as such it can be bent into whatever situation you desire as in reality all the actual pew pews only happen in your head, the game just gives you numbers on the screen.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #253 on: April 01, 2016, 10:16:35 AM »
Giant mecha, which are one of the least efficient/realistic types of ground combat machinery, seriously break my hard SF immersion.
Ever watch the anime Heavy Object? Watch that (and don't point out the point made in the series, I know). And also, they aren't as inefficient as you think. Their main advavntage over other platforms is mobility.  They are true all terrain. Whereas tanks and other military vehicles are off road vehicles, they still need valid paths and stable ground to move around in any faction. One of the easiest ways to take out a tank is to get it stuck. Also, mechs can perform some evasive action (depending on the size).

But overall, given the "Titans" renameability, they don't have to be big, stomping mechs. They can be big, rolling battle fortresses like the Fatman of the Supreme Commander series or the Cocoon of MGS:PW.
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 bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #254 on: April 01, 2016, 10:45:22 AM »
Ever watch the anime Heavy Object? Watch that (and don't point out the point made in the series, I know). And also, they aren't as inefficient as you think. Their main advavntage over other platforms is mobility.  They are true all terrain. Whereas tanks and other military vehicles are off road vehicles, they still need valid paths and stable ground to move around in any faction. One of the easiest ways to take out a tank is to get it stuck. Also, mechs can perform some evasive action (depending on the size).
Seriously?  Mobility?  Let's see.  One of the main limits on tank mobility is ground pressure.  Now, which has lower ground pressure, a tank or a typical mecha?  Also, tanks don't have to have massively complex actuator systems, which makes them cheaper.  If I was making an anime, I could have tanks jumping around and dodging and such, too.
I'm in favor of Titans, although I think they'll probably end up renamed something like 'Armored Divisions' in my game, because I really want more flexibility in ground combat.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman