Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Barkhorn

Pages: [1] 2
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 17, 2018, 02:21:07 AM »
I have one request I really would like to be added to C# Aurora that would be a very nice quality of life for RP purposes.

Make it possible to set up proper patrols with ships. With this I mean an ability to have ships sit and wait at a specific location for a number of days/seconds.

It is especially important if I want ships to stay in port for a few days to rest the crew so they can continue patrolling after visiting friends and families, this way I can set up perpetuating patrols and only remove them for maintenance. Even better if you could save patrol routs. It will also make it easier if you want to set up commercial routes and have them rest their crew as well for RP reasons. But mainly this is for setting up patrols with regular patrol ships that you don't want or need long deployment times for. It does feel a bit immersion breaking that you put like 1-2 years deployment time on a local patrol ship just because it is tedious to rest the crew after a few months.

It could also be good if possible to set up fighter patrols from carriers so you can dock, wait for a specified time and then start over the patrol pattern.

Thanks for all your hard work!
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

2
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 16, 2018, 08:27:10 AM »
First, crew from deactivated ships is already handled; their average skill points are checked, compared to the racial skill point rating for the Academies and if higher, tossed into the crew pool, and if lower the fraction difference is tossed into the crew pool. IIRC anyway.

The biggest issues with mothballing is how long it takes to take the ships out of the mothballs, what facilities you'd use, what parts need to be replaced and how much it costs while in mothballs.
But I don't want the crews added to the pool, I want them added directly to new ships that are built to increase their starting grades. Or to old ships, to strengthen your peace fleet during the mass mothballs that might follow a war's end. I want the grade bonus of the old ship's crew to be preserved rather than converted into more or less manpower.
You always could just dump them into the pool, though. Don't see why that shouldn't still be an option anyway.

How long it takes and the cost would be simple enough. Just the time, facilities, and MSP necessary for a full overhaul from 0-100% on the ship's maintenance clock. Maybe more time than that, it really depends on what "balance testing" says after we get our hands on the game, but I think that's a good enough initial baseline. It wouldn't require any different facilities to those required in normal maintenance and overhauls imo. There's no reason to make more parts of the game for it, it could just be part of the normal maintenance mechanics.
The resources they'd consume in mothballs is tricky, but you could just throw an arbitrary number out and just tweak it as we play the game more and decide what seems fair. For my own arbitrary number I'd say either 1% of the regular MSP for maintenance, or 0%.

No parts would need to be replaced, it'd just be the old ship at full readiness. For missile boats and carriers that'd probably end up being just fine. For melee beam brawlers it would probably be a little more questionable as far as how worthwhile they are to keep in reserve, at least if they become obsolete during that time. iirc most of the ships pulled out of reserve in the Starfire novel "Crusade" were light/escort carriers anyway.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 16, 2018, 07:45:09 AM »
As I'm not sure where else to put this I'll just ask here-

Could we get a button somewhere to make the grid used in the Galactic Map view visible? I know it we can already auto line up but it would help with planning out where to put all the system balls beforehand and the (at least for VB6) "a system at normal zoom is about 6 in diameter" isn't exactly a good measurement. 

Otherwise, pretty much everything happening with C# Aurora is looking pretty good to me.   Particularly the revamp of naval organization to be fully realized as a core system- with drag and drop, no less!
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Combat
« on: January 13, 2018, 05:03:09 PM »
Thanks for all the feedback on the proposed interactions between fighters and ground combat. I think I have now found a good way to make this work.

A new component, the Fighter Pod Bay, is similar in function to a small Box Launcher, except it will only hold Fighter Pods (see below).



Fighter pods are created on the Missile Design window. The various pod options, such as bombardment pod, autocannon pod and air-to air pod, will appear when the requisite technology has been researched. When one of those options is selected, the warhead strength field is replaced by a pod size field. The player can choose the pod size, with larger pods being more effective. The pod capabilities will be similar to the capabilities of equivalent-sized ground unit components, although the fighter pods have more flexibility in design. For example, a bombardment pod will have three shots, armour penetration equal to Racial Weapon Modifier * ((Tons / 20) ^ 0.6) and damage equal to Racial Weapon Modifier * ((Tons / 20) ^ 1.6).

Fighter pods are ordnance, in exactly the same way as missiles. They are built by ordnance factories, transported in magazines and loaded onto fighters. Unlike missiles, they are not expended when fired and will function during ground combat phases.





A fighter can be designed with fighter pod bays. Different pods can be assigned to those bays while the fighter is in a hangar, providing flexibility of loadout. The same fighter could be used for bombardment or autocannon pods, as long as the pods bays are large enough and the parent carrier has both types of pods available. The pods can be assigned to the fighter using the normal ordnance loadout.

Pods can also be assigned to normal box launchers, so a fighter designed for space combat can also be used for ground combat in an emergency. However, box launchers are three times larger than the missiles (or pods) they are designed to fire, while fighter pod bays are equivalent in size to the pods, making fighter pod bays are a much more efficient way to mount the pods. Because of this efficiency and no requirement for fire controls or sensors in ground combat missions, dedicated ground support fighters can be much smaller than their space combat equivalents. It is also possible to have hybrid designs mounting both pods and box launchers. Due to the requirement for smaller engines for dedicated ground support aircraft, ship engines can now be designed from 0.1 HS in size.



The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 09, 2018, 10:44:48 AM »
The issue with the MSP stockpile concept is getting the MSP to the planet. For cargo, colonists and troops, you need time to unload. I haven't decided whether to extend this to maintenance yet. Even so, it doesn't seem realistic to instantly dump a large stockpile of maintenance during an invasion, which is then impervious to hostile attack. The logistics units represent the challenge of establishing the required logistical support and the requirement to defend that logistic support, plus they create a significant decision regarding the division of transport lift between combat and logistical formations.

I like the logistic support units - what I don't like is that they would be "consumed" -.- other than that the system would be great...

why not use something like this:

- Units have MSP needs (like ships) in combat and a small stockpile (more if designed with more), logistic troops have a larger special equipment with larger stockpile (unit design)
- after each combat phase, units in combat get there MSP reduced, logistic units have automated order (to reduce micromanagement) to restock the units if they have enough supply themself AND one unit can only resupply X units or X# of MSP max
- if the MSP of a supply unit is empty, they are useless but still in existence, can die, have to be transported etc but can restock their supply at a place with MSP stored for them (or after the planet is conquered from the new stockpile)


so a logistic supply unit would be like some kind of "tanker or supply ship" but for ground units - but basicly the same system as with ships with an automated resupply order

Problem: the whole MSP for each unit would have to be protocoled somewhere - with so many new ground units etc I am not sure if all the new data would kill the better performance from C#

PS: also MSP loading/unloading should need time, it's always better to use the same "logical system" as much as possible

The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: January 08, 2018, 05:37:02 PM »
Steve what is the fortification creation time, my feeling is is should be an exponential time. What I mean by that you get to the first 1/4 of maximum really quickly (a week), next 1/2 a little longer and the last 1/4 a long time (years) this shows the different type of fortifications. Such a trench to concrete facilities.

Also the destruction should be quite quickly though, I hate to see maximum fortification achieved by attacker within a month, or destruction of the fortification go, then in the next tick it ramps up again, it should be related to how long real world fortifications take.


I think to help you with the space fighter craft situation, you should make it easy on yourself and the players. If you want fighter involved in land based air combat, you must have a spaceport or landing facility. You must assign fighters to that facility and you must assign them to attack or defence. If you do all this, you can make it tick just like all the other ground forces. then when you finished they get assigned to space again.

As far as weapons, I think you a ground combat pod, which is not very big, (10-50t) that uses MSP resources for attack and defence. Fighter on defence only go into attack if opposing fighter attack and not subject to ground fire, else they go into a repair stage. Attack fighters are subject to ground fire and opposing fighters.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

7
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: January 05, 2018, 03:27:17 PM »
Using military units to reduce unrest should damage their maximum morale. In the real world, prolonged use of combat troops for security operations and counterinsurgency warfare has a pronounced detrimental effect on their combat readiness.

Likewise, combat should give a non-trivial temporary (but relatively long-lasting) bonus to maximum morale, representing the fact that peacetime training really is no substitute for actual battlefield experience.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

8
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 26, 2017, 02:35:55 PM »
Suggestion:

Civilian contracts for racial tech (and possibly ships),

Instead of having your researcher do the engineering work of researching racial tech have private companies do it by defining system specs (kinda like wedo now) and have civilian companies develop their own designs that varies somewhat in specs, features, cost and so on (partially random, partially according to each company strength and weaknesses, tough they always at minimum add here to the given specs) that they use as a bid on said system specs. The player can then give out various contracts to said companies.

More here


The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

9
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 26, 2017, 11:56:49 AM »
Suggestion:

Make us design ship hulls rather than ships.  That is, instead of designing a complete ship and tooling a shipyard for it we design a hull with various hull spaces, hard points and mounts where ship system appropriate for said spot can mounted.  Have said hull be a racial research, then shipyards can tool for said hull.  After that ship variants can be designed from said hull (and possibly researched), by adding different systems in the appropriate places and all variants can then be build in the shipyard tooled for said hull.

See for example Star Citizen and their hull variation for inspiration. 

More elaborate explanation here

The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

10
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:28:47 PM »
Any where a character name appears, a double click should open the character page with the record for the character selected displayed.  It takes me so long to award medals right now.

In a similar vein, a text box on the TG form to add a note to all existing characters' histories assigned to the group.  Maybe in the naval organization tab, so you could even do it by branch. That way you could bulk add notes like "Participated in battle if Gleiss 128" or whatever.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

11
C# Aurora / Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« on: July 19, 2017, 10:33:10 PM »
The primary reason I'd like maintenance center reloads for box launchers is micromanagement reduction.  It's definitely more work to have FACs and corvettes and the like dock at a hangar for reloads than it is to send them to a population, order "load ordnance from colony" and let them sit until tubes are ready.  Hangar-only reloads would incentivize building a big hangar, and then cycling all the ships through it.

I'd be absolutely fine with the maintenance centers only reloading tubes during the production/maintenance/upkeep tick only, actually I'd be fine if it only happened once per 5 days.  If you want to load your ships faster, make hangars for them.  :)
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

12
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: July 19, 2017, 08:45:19 AM »
Steve?

Could you consider a toggle in the Class Design window to decide if the power supply goes for the energy hogs first or last? That way, if you design a ship with mixed energy weapons you can decide whether PD capacity is more important or the ability to fire back at the enemy ships.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

13
The Academy / Re: Unassigning a commander
« on: July 19, 2017, 01:37:23 AM »
In the list should be a location "unassigned" (at least I believe this is the name on it) and you click that and assign the govenor to this.  This will leave them on temple 1 though.

What was suggested will also work...you can assign him to earth and then re-assign the govenor of earth back as an alternative way.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

14
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: July 17, 2017, 11:03:17 AM »
While not realtime, what maybe could be in scope for the next Aurora release (Steve willing) is better management of the pausing. Like some control over what events cause a pause with some spam control feature like "do not pause for this event type again unless X time has passed since the last one".
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

15
Aurora Suggestions / Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« on: July 15, 2017, 11:50:05 AM »
Add a system administrator level between planetary and sector admins. That way it would be possible to create a proper civilian bureaucracy. Civilian administrators on asteroids/planets, then a system administrator overseeing the system, and finally a sector administrator that oversees multiple systems. Currently you can have either sector command buildings for each system but then you lose out the third level or you can build-up your sector commands but you lose out the system level.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

Pages: [1] 2