Author Topic: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 107590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik L (OP)

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #210 on: November 25, 2013, 01:13:39 PM »
Blueprints or design specs for components found in ruins.

Example: You'd find a schematic for a 15cm UV laser with C4. That pops it into your available tech window, like you'd designed it. Ideally with names like "Death Ray" or some such.

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #211 on: November 25, 2013, 02:40:24 PM »
Id like to see some more options for smaller beam weapons, Currently (I think) we only can make gauss and laser smaller with the payoff being in accuracy and recharge time.

How about being able to miniaturize other weapons too?
Some other balancing payoffs suggestions to give them unique character:
- exceptionally high buildcost (x10 or x50 for a small version)
- almost no range
- extra energy/reactor need (without changing recharge time)
- lower damage multiplier
- higher explosion chance/damage (if it blows the ship blows)

I also think reduced size lasers are a bit overly harsh in it's modifiers, x0.5 size for 20 times recharge = 10 times less dps. Even if initial hit is twice as big the normal size can fire 2 more times and overcome this in 10% the time the reduced size takes to recharge! Missile Launchers get x0.33 size mod for the same extra time to reload.

Some of these could also be set up so that the option to make them smaller is there from the start (like gauss), but research let's you reduce the malus on the payoff. Id like that for reduced size lasers to be honest, give us the smaller lasers that have 10 times less dps from the start and let us reduce it through research :)

Ideally all beam weapons should have a size 1 = 50ton variant that is possible to unlock or comes with massive trade offs.

The main thing I want is to be able to build a small fighter armed with any weapon type and a total size no bigger then 200-250ton. But most beam weaponry have a minimum size around that!

I guess I just love the idea of a huge swarm of small beam fighters, and the idea of being able to arm your heavier fighters with backup sidearm beams no matter what kind of beams you focus on :)

So don't just give lasers all the love! They come with all the fancy options like reduced size, turrets and now even spinal mounts :P
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #212 on: November 27, 2013, 03:03:11 AM »
I would like to suggest that certain actions take time that are currently done instantly now.  As these actions can be done manually and in that sense take no time it could be argued that it is odd to have them take time when done in a order but the reality is they do take time when done manually...they take the players time.

I'd suggest that refueling takes a time rated by the amount transfered 100 m3/h might be a starting point plus a fixed time to couple and decouple.  If any Navy people are about they probably know as a quick google didn't reveal a rate that I could find.

Remunitioning a ship with missiles probably should be a fixed couple/decouple time and then 5-10 min per missile space point to move it from one ship to the other.

Spares could be moved at a rate of 5 min per MSP transfered plus the fixed couple/decouple time.

The couple/decouple time isn't exactly that the two ships lock airlocks but mainly the time that is required to get close to each other and open airlock doors and exchange all the standard transfer protocols list and everything else involved in such transfers.

This would be another case where logistics skill could be used to reduce the times.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #213 on: November 29, 2013, 10:01:34 AM »
More logistics!

How about letting Ground units consume Supplies (MSP) especially when they are engaged in fighting?

Without it they could operate but with a huge malus due to things breaking down from combat damage and no ammo to shoot with.

Logistics is a key thing in war and if you neither can supply your soldiers nor produce supplies needed on factories at the body they are located then you should have a big problem!

If it is implemented in the harshest possible way so that ground unit needs supplies to survive this gives rise to strategies where you can even blockade enemies from supplying their ground forces, and watch them whittle and die over a matter of months/years.
 

Offline db48x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • d
  • Posts: 641
  • Thanked: 200 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #214 on: November 30, 2013, 06:10:31 AM »
How about minimally-intelligent refueling? Instead of a set fuel level that triggers a refueling, have it get fuel whenever the fuel level is about to drop below the amount needed to either complete the next step of its mission or to refuel at the nearest colony/tanker.  (The 'Refuel at. . . ' settings would be the same as they are now, those are fine. )

I can't prove it would work perfectly for all cases, especially as refueling targets move around, but it would always work at least as well as the current options.
 

Offline markus

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 14
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #215 on: December 10, 2013, 05:38:18 AM »
Now that multi-faction starts with NPR are viable, there's only one thing left that would make me very, very happy (almost like a Christmas gift!)

Making conventional NPRs work.

By that I mean, they would research TN elements and then gradually start researching all the prerequisite techs for weapons, wormhole hopping etc., build their first ships, start colonising space...  Is this too much work? They already seem to be partly working (for example, they do convert conventional industry to normal factories) but it seems the AI is confused by the missing prerequisite techs.
 

Offline DoktorV

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • D
  • Posts: 13
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #216 on: December 11, 2013, 11:14:44 PM »
Edit: Never mind, the feature already exists, it just wasn't where I expected to find it. 

I would like to suggest an interface function to toggle display of civilian ships.   In some of my games they become so numerous that the lists of civilian ships crowd out other information on the system map.   

« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 02:56:02 AM by DoktorV »
 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #217 on: December 12, 2013, 01:00:32 AM »
I would like to suggest an interface function to toggle display of civilian ships.  In some of my games they become so numerous that the lists of civilian ships crowd out other information on the system map. 

Contacts tab, central groupbox: Contact Filter.  Drop down and select "No Civilian" and all civilians of your race will be hidden.  Alternately, if you just want the names hidden, tick the "Hide Civilian Ship Names" box.
 

Offline Xkill

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #218 on: December 13, 2013, 11:17:07 AM »
This is just a repost of my erroneous thread that I placed on this board about a Missile/Beam Weapons only option:


What I was thinking about was having an option on the New Game Menu to restrict or limit the weaponry choices to either Missiles or Beam/Kinetic Weapons for both the NPRs, Spoilers (Perhaps with the exception of the Invaders) and the Player.

It could be like this:

Missiles only game: Missiles, Drones, etc..., as the only offensive weapons. Beam/Kinetic ONLY as PD (Can't target ships or they have really poor accuracy).

Beam/Kinetic only game: Beam/Kinetic as the only usable weapons. Missiles would only be able to be placed on Mines. Drones usable but only on non-combat (Geo/Grav Survey) or semi-combat roles (Active/Thermal/EM Sensors).

I believe this would be a great option for the game, allowing currently semi-useless or very situational weapons like Plasma Carronades or HPWs to be effective.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #219 on: December 14, 2013, 11:53:46 AM »
Some changes to overall combat that I would like to suggest.

Let the size of the ship play a role in how difficult they are to hit. Let's say that anything with a TCS with 100 has a 100% chance to be hit based on size. Anything smaller is then harder to hit and anything bigger easier to hit. This would effect both beam weapon and missiles. At least from a realistic point a view a smaller target is harder to hit than a larger target. Currently it is as easy to hit a smaller missile as it is to hit a huge battleship.
Targeting sensors would perhaps need to start at higher than 100% and reduce over range to accommodate this change. So, hitting large ships at short distances would be more or leas done at 100% while hitting a small fighter would need specially designed weapons and fire-controls. There could also be a third option of how small object your beam fire-control. Low resolution reduce range but increase the accuracy, higher resolution increase range but lower accuracy. Now you need controls against not only fast but also small or very small object such as fighters or missiles. All missiles should perhaps be treated as resolution 1 (TCS 1) for accuracy consideration, mostly for balance sake.

This would of course mean that combat targeting would need to be completely rebalanced, but I think that it would be a new and interesting factor in ship/missile design. Although missiles would need a careful investigation into how they should be implemented. Going over to a Newtonian type of missile would probably be the best thing to do as well as Newtonian type armour. But that is perhaps a little too much change... ;)

Anyway, this would make smaller ships and fighters much more dangerous against larger ships since hitting a large ship at distance will be much easier than hitting a fighter at large distances. So a small corvette with a spinal mounted laser will be very dangerous, or fighters/FAC armed with a particle cannon.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 11:58:34 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #220 on: December 14, 2013, 02:47:13 PM »
Should all ground units automatically be lost when a PDC Barracks is destroyed?

I'm thinking it surely should be easier to evacuate a PDC which has neither fallen nor been compleatly destroyed on a planet compared to evacuating a spaceship where we do get crew rescue pods.

Edit: And regardless of if they should, perhaps the message should report a bit more casualties?:

« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 02:50:02 PM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Sematary

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 732
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #221 on: December 18, 2013, 02:58:24 AM »
Kinetic weapons

For fun I figured out the joules in a kinetic strike on my first gen missiles in the game I am playing in the fiction section, which are 4 msp and go 30,000 km/s. I got a large number and I checked it against the Tzar Bomba, the largest nuclear device that humans have ever set off, and the W88, the main warhead in the US at present. This strike is ~1.7 times the size of the Tzar Bomba and ~200 times the size of the W88.

So saying that 1 warhead, which is what the ICBM has, is equal to the Tzar Bomba then we get kinetic missiles that do damage comparable to missiles with warheads. Practical purposes would be both cost effective and it would give a viable option for lower missile tech. To get the "warhead" size for such a device would be ((((speed*1000)^2)(msp*227))/2)^(1/15)/240. I don't know how hard it would be to code in the putting the speed and the msp into the equation but past that I shouldn't think putting it into warhead size would be that hard.
 

Offline Narmio

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • N
  • Posts: 181
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #222 on: December 18, 2013, 12:54:40 PM »
Kinetic weapons

For fun I figured out the joules in a kinetic strike on my first gen missiles in the game I am playing in the fiction section, which are 4 msp and go 30,000 km/s. I got a large number and I checked it against the Tzar Bomba, the largest nuclear device that humans have ever set off, and the W88, the main warhead in the US at present. This strike is ~1.7 times the size of the Tzar Bomba and ~200 times the size of the W88.

So saying that 1 warhead, which is what the ICBM has, is equal to the Tzar Bomba then we get kinetic missiles that do damage comparable to missiles with warheads. Practical purposes would be both cost effective and it would give a viable option for lower missile tech. To get the "warhead" size for such a device would be ((((speed*1000)^2)(msp*227))/2)^(1/15)/240. I don't know how hard it would be to code in the putting the speed and the msp into the equation but past that I shouldn't think putting it into warhead size would be that hard.
This is one of those "laws of realistic sci-fi" problems.  Any spaceship fast enough to be interesting is an unparalleled weapon of mass destruction by its kinetic energy alone.  The truth is that a mid-game 20,000km/s fighter would probably cause a crater the size of Texas, kicking off a dinosaur-esque mass extinction event. If you stick to realistic models of motion and include technology powerful enough to travel between planets then you get a situation where you don't need warheads ever, you just accelerate towards your opponent and toss a bag of relativistic crowbars out the window at a distance of a few light seconds. 

If you don't want combat to look like that you need to fudge the numbers by a few orders of magnitude.  I think it's most consistent to assume that Trans-newtonian movement does not actually involve acceleration in what we think of as the three dimensions of space, but instead moving the ship in some "other" space which obeys different rules. It's thus reactionless, inertialess and as long as you don't think too hard, flawless. :)
 

Offline Erik L (OP)

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #223 on: December 18, 2013, 01:45:25 PM »
In replying to Dulkan's post, I had this thought... Allow for a hard cap on the number of NPRs that can be spawned. Once that limit is reached, no more NPRs will be spawned at all. This would allow for a decrease in the slowdowns that occur.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #224 on: December 18, 2013, 02:20:20 PM »
Now that multi-faction starts with NPR are viable, there's only one thing left that would make me very, very happy (almost like a Christmas gift!)

Making conventional NPRs work.

By that I mean, they would research TN elements and then gradually start researching all the prerequisite techs for weapons, wormhole hopping etc., build their first ships, start colonising space...  Is this too much work? They already seem to be partly working (for example, they do convert conventional industry to normal factories) but it seems the AI is confused by the missing prerequisite techs.

The major problem is that there are a lot of basic TN techs and most things you build or design requires one or more of them. For a TN start they are almost all available so no problem. For a conventional start I would either have to set up checks for the techs every time an NPR considered designing a ship, constructing an installation, etc, or create a series of flags for all the various ships, installations etc and check/set those flags every time a new tech was researched. It's possible, it's just a lot of work. I will get to it one day :)