Author Topic: Aurora II  (Read 159503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Crustypeanut

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Ph.Dwarf & Practitioner of !!MEDICINE!!
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #150 on: November 04, 2011, 05:20:29 AM »
Huge fan of the game since learning of it over on the Dwarf Fortress forums, and upon reading about Aurora II I decided to make an account and offer some of my comments and suggestions to the game, which I greatly look forward to, although I'm still loving Aurora 1.


Quote
3) Real-time rather than stepped time.  Time will be more like Harpoon or Europa Universalis where you can pause it, or accelerate it.  This is isn't as different as it sounds because it will be similar to permament automated turns with the sub-pulses equal to the acceleraton rate and no defined increments.  I intend to load everything into memory so the program will avoid any database access as time passes.  This will improve performance considerably.  You should also be able to watch ships move across the map if I can get the graphics working as I intend.

First off, I really, really like this idea.   Not only will it remove the whole constantly clicking on '30 days' or however time I want to pass, but I also think the transition to real time would be a very smart move.   I like the idea of being able to see my ships move back and forth in real time, or in slow motion / fast motion.

One idea that thing brings to mind that you could possibly implement is a limited form of Multiplayer.   Since its not stepped time anymore, I would guess that it would be easier to have 2-4+ players in the same game with different empires at once, depending on how the game was hosted.   Although a single-player version would certainly allow acceleration and pausing whenever they chose, multiplayer would have a more stable speed, perhaps chosen at start, or chosen by majority vote during gameplay.   In this way, it would be akin to a slow-paced real time strategy game.   

However, to make combat more realistic for this multiplayer mode, combat would need to be extremely automated.   Perhaps it would be possible to 'program' combat maneuvers into each individual ship, task group, or fleet that they automatically carry out upon certain situations in combat, much like the conditional orders that are in the game now.   Players could program these maneuvers during peace time, which would simulate fleet training.   Ships or fleets without said training or programming would be less effective, but no where near useless, as there could be a 'default' set of combat behaviors they could follow.   

Another part of this gameplay is to allow this real-time combat to be able to select a ship/group/fleet from the system map and give them a simple order, such as “Move here at x% speed”, “Attack this target”, etc.   Again, this would be similar to a real time strategy.

For single player, such automation wouldn't be required, although having it would still be interesting.   It would allow newer players to get into combat easier, but allow more experienced players to personalize their fleets' tactics to their liking.   I'm still very new to combat in Aurora I myself, as I often take ages to leave the Sol system and often restart my game before I find any aliens.   


As for your other ideas, such as the resolutions, no-jump points, centering around the system map, and area-of-effect missiles, I really like all of these ideas but I don't really have any suggestions to make.   The resolution change and centering around the system map are two ideas I particularly like, as my laptop cuts off a small portion of the screens (Even with the current option to shrink the windows), and this would allow people with any size monitor to enjoy the game to its fullest.   I think these two ideas alone will bring in a ton more players to the game.   The bazillion windows so far are a bit of a juggle and hard to manage at first, and even once you remember where everything is and needs to go, its still a juggle.   I find myself closing and opening windows more often than not, although I still enjoy the game immensely.   


Again, thanks for making such an amazing game, and I hope your inspiration to continue working on Aurora II comes sooner rather than later.   In the mean time, I'll continue with my plan of making an army of genetically superior Viking Marines named the Aesir through experimental genetic modification and dominate our enemies through ship boarding and hails of gauss cannon fire. .  >:)
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #151 on: November 11, 2011, 08:50:19 PM »
Quote
) Area damage from nuclear explosions. Missiles would detonate based on proximity and damage would be based on warhead yield and distance from detonation. This would obviously create some disadvantages to ships travelling in close formation, as multiple ships would be damaged by the same explosion, and give the player some significant decisions with regard to escort deployment. No more 'Empire State' formations. With no jump points to consider, formations would no longer have some of their current disadvantages and I would add extra functionality to make them easier to manage. It will also reduce the need to build missiles on a 4/9/16 warhead basis as only a proportion of warhead strength will be applied against a particular target. Arriving in a new star system could result in a scattered formation so ship design would have to consider whether specialised units that could be separated for some time are better than multi-purpose units than could fight more effectively in isolation. Ships on the offensive would be more likely to be isolated than ships on the defensive so grand strategy may also influence ship design.
It seems to me the main focus here  is to break up formations and AOE damage is a means to that end. You could add techs specifically for that - gravity warheads? - but theres other ways to do it imo....   Like you could have a parallax bonus for point defense, or missiles with active sensors could have a chance of reacquiring new targets at the same location if they miss.  (Of course, that would mean you would have to have missiles that _can_ miss lategame... heh.)

Other thoughts:
* Sensor degredation from overlapping
* Shields penalty from overlapping.
* Warheads/weapons that cause large/temporary penalties to sensors/FC in the region they hit. Microwave-lite but AOE.
 

Offline Marski

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 137 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #152 on: April 25, 2012, 05:21:33 AM »
Is Aurora II in the "concept" stage? Or is it already couple of percents towards the assumed version of a complete product?
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2790
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #153 on: May 09, 2012, 01:28:42 PM »
Concept, AFAIK.
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #154 on: May 17, 2012, 08:51:49 AM »
There has been some Aurora II work done, but that has been completely halted in favor of Newtonian Aurora that implements much of the discussed systems in the currently existing engine. Unfortunately it will still use VB and all, but the gameplay elements are coming into being.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5656
  • 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: Aurora II
« Reply #155 on: May 17, 2012, 11:02:20 AM »
There has been some Aurora II work done, but that has been completely halted in favor of Newtonian Aurora that implements much of the discussed systems in the currently existing engine. Unfortunately it will still use VB and all, but the gameplay elements are coming into being.

I believe A2 and NA are both in C# rather than VB.

Offline Beersatron

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #156 on: May 17, 2012, 04:10:48 PM »
I believe A2 and NA are both in C# rather than VB.

NA is just a copy of Regular Aurora so still VB.
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #157 on: May 17, 2012, 05:39:06 PM »
If NA is in C# then this is the first I've heard about it
 

Offline theredone7

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • t
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #158 on: May 18, 2012, 01:26:17 PM »
Quote from: Antagonist link=topic=3011. msg49906#msg49906 date=1337294346
If NA is in C# then this is the first I've heard about it

Steve first mentioned he was using it in the first sentence of this thread.
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #159 on: May 18, 2012, 06:09:27 PM »
Newtonian Aurora != Aurora II

If you continued reading thread you'd see that Steve decided against doing Aurora II which is C#, and do NA instead, which is a continuation of the Aurora I code, aka still in VB. It uses all of his game mechanics ideas for Aurora II, but without the complete and total rewrite that doing it in C# would entail.

Aurora II is still on the table, it will possibly be made at some time, but as far as I am aware it is not being worked on right now. But as I said before, if it is more active than I thought and actively being devved on, then it is news to me and I would be exceedingly happy.

I've done some programming on trying to link up proper C# WPF with MSSQL (way better than excell) and even sent Steve some of these experiments in the past, though I never received a reply. If Steve didn't want to keep it very closed source I would have been willing to assist to try make Aurora II a possibility.
 

Offline ollobrains

  • Commander
  • *********
  • o
  • Posts: 380
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #160 on: May 29, 2012, 02:14:45 AM »
anyone ever considered starting a seperate project that is open source.  Seems to beenugh programers around here wiling to step up
 

Offline HaliRyan

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 232
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #161 on: May 29, 2012, 09:57:28 AM »
I've considered it, but there's two issues.

1) It's a hell of a lot of work.

2) I doubt anyone wants to steal Steve's thunder by making an Aurora clone without him, especially when he's done such an amazing job of managing and maintaining the game.
 

Offline Antagonist

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 124
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #162 on: May 29, 2012, 11:08:30 AM »
Agreed really. Any Aurora II should involve or at least receive Steve's blessing.

Doesn't rule out a new open source game designed from scratch, but a) I sure as hell not willing to do it alone and b) they exist. Just none with as good balance between complexity and playability that Aurora has.
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #163 on: May 31, 2012, 08:45:07 PM »
As much as I like Aurora and Steve, I hope that would not stifle another project team, working on a product similarly.

No two games would ever play the same. Game designers and developers should only encourage more development in an area not hinder it. I do not believe Steve is the type of guy to get upset by people developing a similar product, as he stated himself he does aurora for his own reasons, we are just the lucky people that get to play from his work.

I would like to see a project similar to aurora 2 however there are meany feature and functionality I would like different. I would like more focus on ground combat and diplomacy. I would like a multiplayer ability, I would like a stronger AI, but with Aurora depth.

--- Hypothetically ---

Although I am a not a coder (I do 3D modelling and game design), I had a fair bit of experience in mod teams and I understand the work it take to get a game from scratch and try to make a team work for common goals. It takes months of game design without a single piece of code written, it takes dedication from a lead coder, cause you lose the lead coder first part from opening to alpha, it all falls apart. And it take a lot of dedication and coordination from people around it. Yes even open source stuff.

So you first need a lead coder willing to take on such a mammoth amount work that this style of game is, and they are not a dime a dozen. Having said that if there was such a coder, I for one would be willing to discuss the opportunity to help them. Aurora style games should be encouraged not hindered. If Steve was open to support and help I would even stick my hand up for him, however I don't see 3D modelling a great need for him. My UI abilities are better then average, but my artistic work is not a beautiful as others, everyone has there own talents.



 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11665
  • Thanked: 20421 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #164 on: June 10, 2012, 06:02:12 PM »
As much as I like Aurora and Steve, I hope that would not stifle another project team, working on a product similarly.

No two games would ever play the same. Game designers and developers should only encourage more development in an area not hinder it. I do not believe Steve is the type of guy to get upset by people developing a similar product, as he stated himself he does aurora for his own reasons, we are just the lucky people that get to play from his work.

I would like to see a project similar to aurora 2 however there are meany feature and functionality I would like different. I would like more focus on ground combat and diplomacy. I would like a multiplayer ability, I would like a stronger AI, but with Aurora depth.

--- Hypothetically ---

Although I am a not a coder (I do 3D modelling and game design), I had a fair bit of experience in mod teams and I understand the work it take to get a game from scratch and try to make a team work for common goals. It takes months of game design without a single piece of code written, it takes dedication from a lead coder, cause you lose the lead coder first part from opening to alpha, it all falls apart. And it take a lot of dedication and coordination from people around it. Yes even open source stuff.

So you first need a lead coder willing to take on such a mammoth amount work that this style of game is, and they are not a dime a dozen. Having said that if there was such a coder, I for one would be willing to discuss the opportunity to help them. Aurora style games should be encouraged not hindered. If Steve was open to support and help I would even stick my hand up for him, however I don't see 3D modelling a great need for him. My UI abilities are better then average, but my artistic work is not a beautiful as others, everyone has there own talents.


I wouldn't have any issues with anyone creating an Aurora-style game. In fact, I would very likely play it :)

There are some difficulties doing something this complex as a team effort though. First, everyone has to work for free because anything with this depth is not mass-market. If you want to make money, a less complex game is a better option. Then either everyone has to maintain their focus for the lifetime of the project, or everyone has to document their work thoroughly so someone else can step in. Finally, with a team effort, a lot of design work has to be done up front so that team members can be allocated tasks within the overall project, plus everyone has to agree the design. I've run several very large IT programme (9 figure budgets, multiple countries) and in a team-based project, planning is absolutely critical. To quote Eisenhower, "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything".

I happily ignore my own advice when working solo though :). When I get a new idea or see something on the forum, I just start coding. As I hit areas that will be affected, I make a note to come back to them. Then those areas affect other things, which in turn affect other things, which get added to the list. During most of this design-on-the-fly process Aurora won't run because I just broke it deliberately. Once I identify all those loose ends (or think I have) I put Aurora back together again and hope it runs. The period of coding while not being able to run the program can sometimes last several weeks. Then the debugging begins.

It's a lot faster than planning ahead (most of the time) but I comment almost every line of code and don't have to work in a team. Try the second method above with a team and I guarantee you will run into trouble :)

Steve