Author Topic: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion  (Read 30316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shipright

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2013, 08:51:35 PM »
Honestly even that's too much thought. Given the game abstracts gravity on ships where the game primarily packs on the minute details it's silly to want detail on planetary management where the game is by design far more abstract.

Have regular and advanced infrastructure and call it a day. The method of gravity can be drawn from the same place ship graphics explosions are, your head!
 

Offline Theodidactus

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 628
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2013, 09:40:59 PM »
that was kinda my view on the matter
My Theodidactus, now I see that you are excessively simple of mind and more gullible than most. The Crystal Sphere you seek cannot be found in nature, look about you...wander the whole cosmos, and you will find nothing but the clear sweet breezes of the great ethereal ocean enclosed not by any bound
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2013, 04:21:40 AM »
Remember though that when talking about artificial gravity on small military ships you have about 1000 times higher budget (both in credits and in energy) per crew compared to your colony of millions of civilians on a moon somewhere.

I always envisioned in my universes that artificial gravity on ships is possible but too expensive (either credits or energy) for large scale civilian mass use.
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2013, 05:13:54 AM »
too expensive (either credits or energy)
When it comes down to it, those two are actually the same thing. 
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2013, 05:42:13 AM »
When it comes down to it, those two are actually the same thing.  

Tell that to my poor crew trying to outrun the spoilers and failing miserably. I does not help how much credits I try to throw at their ships, they just won't go any faster since my limited engine tech can't output more energy :P
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 05:49:06 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Wolfius

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • W
  • Posts: 89
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2013, 06:59:04 AM »
Have regular and advanced infrastructure and call it a day.

Could go with the name Localised or Specialised Infrastructure if it still has to be built on-site. Maybe call the existing General Purpose Infrastructure or something to that end.

 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2013, 02:22:04 PM »
I like it! Whether underground or advanced infrastructure, I think its cool.

I have been of the opinion for a long time that even established 0 cost worlds should require X infrastructure per population. Cities need to be built and so do roads, after all.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 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: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2013, 04:01:26 PM »
I was reading your description of multi-starts in Sol, Steve and I have a question.

By the wording, it seems you cannot improve the relations past neutral until after the counter runs out. Is this correct, or can you improve them prior?

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20453 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2013, 05:49:30 PM »
I was reading your description of multi-starts in Sol, Steve and I have a question.

By the wording, it seems you cannot improve the relations past neutral until after the counter runs out. Is this correct, or can you improve them prior?

No, the relations are fixed at neutral until the countdown runs out. After that, relations change according to the normal rules.

Steve
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 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: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #54 on: December 09, 2013, 06:09:07 PM »
No, the relations are fixed at neutral until the countdown runs out. After that, relations change according to the normal rules.

Steve

It seems to me that you should be able to increase the relations prior to the countdown expiring.

That gives me another thought... If two empires start on Earth, and are forced into neutral status, does that hold outside of the Sol system too?

Offline Five

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 86
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2013, 11:05:28 PM »
Is the count down timer the same for all nations or can the time be set to different intervals for different nations?

-Five
 

wilddog5

  • Guest
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2013, 07:02:35 AM »
how about a +/-percentage variable box so when you start a game with neutral for 10 years with 10% variable they could unlock anytime from year 9-11 so they dont all kill you at once or 0% for a nuclear Apocalypse scenario :)
 

Offline Prince of Space

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 182
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • We like it very much.
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2013, 11:58:04 AM »
Steve, on the topic of underground infrastructure: if I understand correctly then a low gravity body with a colony on it will only consider the underground infrastructure (and orbital habitats) when determining the maximum population. Shipping standard infrastructure to it would be a waste of time. Do civilian shipping lines recognize this and/or does the population's demand for infrastructure as trade goods get set to zero?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11672
  • Thanked: 20453 times
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2013, 01:25:27 PM »
Steve, on the topic of underground infrastructure: if I understand correctly then a low gravity body with a colony on it will only consider the underground infrastructure (and orbital habitats) when determining the maximum population. Shipping standard infrastructure to it would be a waste of time. Do civilian shipping lines recognize this and/or does the population's demand for infrastructure as trade goods get set to zero?

There is no civilian demand for normal infrastructure on a low grav world

Steve
 

Offline Aldaris

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 114
Re: Change Log for 6.40 Discussion
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2013, 02:14:34 PM »
Could the civillian sector on such a world produce underground infrastructure at 1/5th the rate it would normally produce regular infrastructure? It seems a bit questionable why they'd bother with the latter at all.