C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Steve Walmsley]

Would it be possible to make multiple ordnance loadout orders for a class?

IIRC that's not possible in VB6 and it doesn't look possible in C# Aurora, and it would only rarely be useful, but still.

Possible but there are some tricky elements. The ship loadout will make things a lot easier. Since I posted to the changes thread I added the ability to copy the ship loadout template to the class loadout template and to copy a ship loadout template to the ship loadout template of all ships of the same class in the same fleet. It is a lot more flexible than VB6.

[Hazard]

It'd depend on ease of use I'd expect, but that's something that's only going to be revealed by playing the game.

[the obelisk]

Is there a possibility that in a future update, conducting diplomacy will involve more than sitting a ship with a diplomacy module in their detection range?  With the ability for a planet to have multiple colonies, and C# bringing in ground units dedicated to archaeology, it seems like the groundwork for embassies exists.

[Steve Walmsley]

Is there a possibility that in a future update, conducting diplomacy will involve more than sitting a ship with a diplomacy module in their detection range?  With the ability for a planet to have multiple colonies, and C# bringing in ground units dedicated to archaeology, it seems like the groundwork for embassies exists.

I haven't really got going with diplomacy yet, so there are lots of options.

[Froggiest1982]

With the ability for a planet to have multiple colonies

I think that is already coded as it was for the VB6

[Hazard]

It is.

Any population that is dissimilar from any current population will create a new colony on planet.

[the obelisk]

With the ability for a planet to have multiple colonies

I think that is already coded as it was for the VB6

Right.  I was trying to say that the multiple colonies thing could be used as is for some kind of embassy situation.

[Akhillis]

I have a bad feeling I'm going to end up giving a flag bridge to practically every warship class above the size of a FAC just so that I can have an absurdly elaborate command hierarchy for my Fleet 

[Zincat]

The tactical map popup menu is going to be AMAZING. Thanks you very much.

I think it will spare us a TON of clicks, and a lot of time as well. Incredible quality improvement as far as I am concerned

[JacenHan]

Does the Prefix/Suffix option use all possible combinations of names? IE: If I have a name list contains only the name "Dragon", but add a prefix list with a variety of colors, would I then get a series of ships named "Red Dragon", "Yellow Dragon", etc., or just one ship named "Red Dragon"?

[davidb86]

Does the Prefix/Suffix option use all possible combinations of names? IE: If I have a name list contains only the name "Dragon", but add a prefix list with a variety of colors, would I then get a series of ships named "Red Dragon", "Yellow Dragon", etc., or just one ship named "Red Dragon"?

I believe that if you used the color list and the suffix dragon, you would get Red Dragon, Blue Dragon, Green Dragon, ...  etc.  I do not think you can combine two lists.

[JacenHan]

That makes more sense . My bad for misreading the post.

[TheRowan]

This is a small change that makes things much more convenient... especially when I'm building Auxiliaries and using traditional RFA names for them.

[Garfunkel]

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg115853#msg115853

Final Defensive Fire Changes

In VB6 Aurora, a fire control can only fire at a single target in any increment. For C# Aurora, an exception is made for fire controls firing in automatic final defensive fire mode.

A fire control in this mode will continue to fire on incoming salvos as long as it has unfired weapons remaining. Each individual weapon or turret will only be able to engage a single salvo. This means point defence ships no longer need a large number of fire control systems, although there is still a design choice in terms of redundancy.

In VB6 Aurora, missiles moved in descending order of speed. I've updated that for C# Aurora to descending order of speed then by descending order of salvo size, so the largest salvos of the same type of missile will move first (and be engaged first by final defensive fire).

This should solve the issue of loads of small salvos overwhelming defensive fire controls problem. But does it mean that quad turrets are less impressive now since their four shots will be limited on one salvo? I would assume not really, because nobody fires bunch of identical salvos but each consisting of only 1-2 missiles.

[Bremen]

I'm a bit concerned, to be honest. Final defensive fire was already really powerful.