Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 348457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Eventinfo: Jump Point stabilized
« Reply #315 on: June 24, 2018, 11:55:12 AM »
Hi,

just going through a campaign were I am building lots of JG - got the problem that when a JG is finished you only get an Info "XY has completed order" but no "JG as been build at JP XY"

with the chances in C#, would it be possible to include an Info-Event that says something like "JP to XY has been successfully stabilized" ? Just to make the point that a JP is stabilized more eyecatching

EDIT: there is a message that the construction is started, but no message about it beeing finished
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 11:56:57 AM by King-Salomon »
 

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #316 on: June 24, 2018, 02:10:16 PM »
Mass drivers should have the option of sending a specific number of minerals, instead of just turning them on and remembering a couple years later to stop sending all your stuff to Mars.  Also, the ability to pick and choose which minerals are used.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #317 on: June 24, 2018, 03:49:47 PM »
Mass drivers should have the option of sending a specific number of minerals, instead of just turning them on and remembering a couple years later to stop sending all your stuff to Mars.  Also, the ability to pick and choose which minerals are used.

IIRC You can currently set stockpile levels and the mass driver wont send minerals unless they're over the amount it's supposed to keep stockpiled.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #318 on: June 28, 2018, 10:36:41 AM »
Will it be possible to tug a row of ships in C#? (Without the mass calf error of VB6 of course)

Are there commands available to detach certain tugged ships at one colony and then continue to the next planet? I am thinking of General commands, not the absolute specific ones we have at the moment.

My idea is to have a tug going on a cycletour of planets and when it reaches a target Checks if there are certain types of ships waiting to be tugged to a destination, it automatically adds them to itself if the destination is on its tour, and once arrived there untuggs it.

Those ships or containers then perform there own tasks at the destination until they get picked up again by the next tug.
 
The following users thanked this post: Triato

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #319 on: June 28, 2018, 11:09:59 PM »
That sounds like quite a fun feature.
 

Offline Peroox

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • P
  • Posts: 18
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #320 on: June 29, 2018, 03:48:37 AM »
Multiple containers with box launchers! Sounds like civilian ship that can tugged multiple weapon platform.  It's good because can drag multiple orbital weapon platform to new position, but player could exploit it during battle. 
 

Offline MasonMac

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 93
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #321 on: June 29, 2018, 09:05:13 AM »
I don't know if this was said already, but would a fabrication module be possible to create missiles on the go and to passively repair the ship in exchange for minerals? It would function like an ordinance/construction/fighter factory all in one.  It would also probably be useful in colony operations to get infrastructure up.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 09:23:06 AM by MasonMac »
 

Offline Andy8583

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #322 on: July 05, 2018, 02:45:14 PM »
When starting a new game allow the user to 'outlaw' or make unavailable certain technology/technological paths (such as the various weapon paths) so that if the user would like, for example, a more 'Star Wars' experience they can just get rid of missiles and the rest leaving only lasers and mesons.  I imagine this could also apply to shielding /  stealth tech depending on peoples tastes (since I don't think anyone will be wanting to get rid of the production paths etc) but being able to determine the weapon types, and thus the 'meta' of the military in a game could be nice.
 
The following users thanked this post: JacenHan, SpikeTheHobbitMage, El Pip, the obelisk

Offline El Pip

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 165 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #323 on: July 05, 2018, 04:43:47 PM »
When starting a new game allow the user to 'outlaw' or make unavailable certain technology/technological paths (such as the various weapon paths) so that if the user would like, for example, a more 'Star Wars' experience they can just get rid of missiles and the rest leaving only lasers and mesons.  I imagine this could also apply to shielding /  stealth tech depending on peoples tastes (since I don't think anyone will be wanting to get rid of the production paths etc) but being able to determine the weapon types, and thus the 'meta' of the military in a game could be nice.
Definitely this. As long as you also had the option to remove say missiles and mesons. Because Mesons always seem cheaty and annoying.

But if you could pick the techs, and if we could have a "tiny spinal" mount for lasers (and railguns?), a player could have a Star Destroyer packing laser armed TIE fighters as a viable fleet unit.
 
The following users thanked this post: the obelisk

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11657
  • Thanked: 20375 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #324 on: July 05, 2018, 06:39:34 PM »
When starting a new game allow the user to 'outlaw' or make unavailable certain technology/technological paths (such as the various weapon paths) so that if the user would like, for example, a more 'Star Wars' experience they can just get rid of missiles and the rest leaving only lasers and mesons.  I imagine this could also apply to shielding /  stealth tech depending on peoples tastes (since I don't think anyone will be wanting to get rid of the production paths etc) but being able to determine the weapon types, and thus the 'meta' of the military in a game could be nice.

This is possible but tricky. The simple implementation would be to flag certain techs as not available. However, those techs affect other parts of the game. For example, removing missiles would require removing techs such as warhead strength or missile agility, but that would leave ordnance factories, ordnance-related logistics installations, the missile design window, ordnance factory options in production, etc. You would also need to remove magazine techs, but they would still be an option in the Create Project window. It isn't as straightforward as ticking techs to exclude. Also, by excluding missiles, you also exclude recon probes, geo-survey probes or sensor buoys, unless you only exclude warheads

In addition, NPRs would have to be able to handle any missing parts of their normal tech, which would not be straightforward at all.

It might be possible at some point to have (for example) a non-missile version as an option for a game, with all the various missile-related elements removed. However, they are an integral part of the game so it would take a while to identify everything that would change. Maybe for a post-launch version.
 
The following users thanked this post: Happerry, the obelisk

Offline El Pip

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 165 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #325 on: July 06, 2018, 01:42:32 AM »
This is possible but tricky. The simple implementation would be to flag certain techs as not available. However, those techs affect other parts of the game. For example, removing missiles would require removing techs such as warhead strength or missile agility, but that would leave ordnance factories, ordnance-related logistics installations, the missile design window, ordnance factory options in production, etc. You would also need to remove magazine techs, but they would still be an option in the Create Project window. It isn't as straightforward as ticking techs to exclude. Also, by excluding missiles, you also exclude recon probes, geo-survey probes or sensor buoys, unless you only exclude warheads

In addition, NPRs would have to be able to handle any missing parts of their normal tech, which would not be straightforward at all.

It might be possible at some point to have (for example) a non-missile version as an option for a game, with all the various missile-related elements removed. However, they are an integral part of the game so it would take a while to identify everything that would change. Maybe for a post-launch version.
Is the simple fix just to have a No-missile checkbox that disables warhead techs and tells the NPRs to only use the beam AI schemas?

If that works, and as problems come out during play testing, it could get finessed in later versions.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #326 on: July 06, 2018, 04:36:09 AM »
When starting a new game allow the user to 'outlaw' or make unavailable certain technology/technological paths (such as the various weapon paths) so that if the user would like, for example, a more 'Star Wars' experience they can just get rid of missiles and the rest leaving only lasers and mesons.  I imagine this could also apply to shielding /  stealth tech depending on peoples tastes (since I don't think anyone will be wanting to get rid of the production paths etc) but being able to determine the weapon types, and thus the 'meta' of the military in a game could be nice.
Well, there is torpedo tech in the SW universe; they are simply very low range, equal to the beam wepaons (one might argue, that in relation to range, the SW universe is the opposite of the Aurora universe - beams (as we have learned in TFA) can be quite long range ... . However (as we have learned in TLJ), shielding is quite strong over distance - which is the technobabble reasoning for their short range fights ... .
But let's not get off topic...
 

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #327 on: July 06, 2018, 06:48:11 AM »
However (as we have learned in TLJ), shielding is quite strong over distance - which is the technobabble reasoning for their short range fights ... .
Is it? Man I prefer the old EU explanation that EW got so good they're down to having to rely on their own eyes.
 

Offline Agoelia

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • A
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #328 on: July 06, 2018, 07:56:36 AM »
Quote from: Tree link=topic=9841. msg108839#msg108839 date=1530877691
Quote from: TMaekler link=topic=9841. msg108837#msg108837 date=1530869769
However (as we have learned in TLJ), shielding is quite strong over distance - which is the technobabble reasoning for their short range fights . . .  .
Is it? Man I prefer the old EU explanation that EW got so good they're down to having to rely on their own eyes.

Could easily be both
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #329 on: July 06, 2018, 12:48:49 PM »
Eh, there isnt really any kind of anti-lidar countermeasure that can defeat proper lidar but eyes can somehow see through it.  Its star wars, the actual details of the space combat are terrible.

e: I'm sure relying on your own eyes will cut right through that:

« Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 12:52:55 PM by QuakeIV »