Suggestions for v5.1

[Arwyn]

Actually, that is a really good idea.

One of thing things I liked about Hearts of Iron is that it reflected the production line efficiencies that result from task repetition.


As far as the missiles conversation goes; economically, missiles will kill your empire financial the longer and engagement goes on. I ran into that personally 2 games back where I simply couldnt build enough missiles to keep up with the rate of expenditure from combat (evil, evil box launchers).

Missiles also start to lose out when fighting higher tech opponents due to the increase in speed and anti-missile defenses. In my last game I had an entire fleet of missile boats get stopped cold by three dedicated anti-missile cruisers. I expended the entire magazine capacity of the fleet to kill one AMM cruiser and damage another. NOT a favorable exchange rate. I am playing a current game where my major opponents are star swarm and a higher tech mechanical race. I can kill swarm all day long, but I cant sustain the fight to keep up with the rate of replacement vs the number of missiles. The mechanoid race is higher enough tech to make my missile exchanges ruinously expensive, since I have to saturate their defenses wholesale to get a kill through.

If you have a significant speed advantage, beams are definitely viable. They cant be stopped, they cost nothing, and the have deeper damage profiles. I had three beam armed frigates firing 20cm UV lasers decimate an enemy fleet by catching them at close range and then running down the surviors for a loss of 2 of the three frigates vs 9 enemy destroyers/cruisers armed with missiles.

Missiles are strong early on against similar tech opponents, against higher tech NPR's, they are often less than stellar, so I dont think they are at all unbalanced from a end to end game perspective.

[Decimator]

I think it would be nice to have a mass production bonus that increases the build rate by a small % every time you build the same thing again.

When you have 3 slipways churning out the same FAC for the last 6 years, you gotta expect them to be faster.
To counter it, the mod rate could go down.

Why should the mod rate go down?  You would already have the disadvantage of producing obsolete equipment.

[Bear]

I'd like to suggest a change to the minimum missile size while still maintaining its ability to deter the ability to build massive swarms of duds that overload defensive systems. The basis for this being there seems to be no reason real world or Aurora to not be able to build a missile with a 1-pt warhead that's smaller than 1 MSP should tech levels allow it to be practical.

So the basic idea is this, change the missile requirements to be at least 1 MSP total size OR at least a 1-pt warhead.  This should still prevent someone from blatantly abusing the ability to create tiny missiles, while allows those with high levels of technology to still be able to take advantage of it in the form of effective short-ranged missiles or second-stage bomblets.

In the same vein I was considering the idea of requiring every missile to have a basic "guidance system."  This would represent the basic electronics and controls necessary for a missile to communicate with its fire control, steer, and so on.  It would be perhaps .05 MSP so as to not totally throw off current missile designs but serve as a further deterrent to tiny dud missiles.

[The Shadow]

The system suffers from unbelievability already with all races breathing oxygen (uncommon and highly toxic) or Methane, and for some inexplicable reason they all suffer from radiation and stuff like Carbon Monoxide.

Er, no.  Oxygen is one of the few gases that can provide enough metabolic energy to  support complex animal life.  It's no accident that the Cambrian explosion occurred shortly after the building up of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere;  complex animals would have had a very hard time beforehand.

The reason *why* oxygen is uncommon in its native state is because it's highly reactive - the very reason that makes it a good biological medium.  (It's uncommon only in its native diatomic form, though - oxygen is one of the most common elements in the universe.)

If you spot free oxygen in an atmosphere, that almost (but not quite) guarantees that there is life there.  Especially if (as with Earth) it appears along with a small amount of methane.  The two simply cannot coexist together for long, so if both appear, they must be constantly regenerated.

It has been hypothesized that a hydrogen-methane cycle could also work, in place of an oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle.  (But everyone, including Aurora, gets it backwards - the animals would actually be breathing hydrogen, while the plants would be breathing methane.  Which means that any world with such a cycle needs to be heavy enough to hold onto hydrogen.)

Virtually all other SF suggestions for breathable gases simply don't work - they don't provide enough energy.  Steve has clearly done his research.

Radiation probably *should* affect almost any biology, unless it evolved with reasons to have strong defenses against it.  Any life based on chemistry will have a strong distaste for ionizing radiation.  While some Earth species are highly radiation resistant (with the crown going to the Radiodurans genus of bacteria, which flourishes inside nuclear reactors) that ability carries a high cost that most species are not willing or able to pay.  Basically, you can be good at that or good at other things, and the other things are often more useful.

(That said, I do think that removing radiation should be a terraforming option.)

Carbon monoxide is more of an issue.  I don't see any particular reason why it would have an effect on a "methane-breathing" race, though you never know.  But hemoglobin isn't the only chelating compound that holds carbon monoxide better than oxygen;  the stuff is built like oxygen, only smaller and lighter.

[UnLimiTeD]

Technically it is possible for a species to breath radiation, after all it's sort of a kind of energy.
And Oxygen is indeed highly toxic to beings not accustomed to it, just like
There were some experiments a while back that showed that life could exist based on elictricity, inside a constant voltage, they sort of developed charge cores with a double ion shere around it that grew and split like our cells do.
Sure, that was primitive, but it would work as a proof of concept.
A race with a hivemind could probably also do with a less reactive gas to fuel their bodily reactions, I mean, a spacefaring race could just as well be intelligent goo.
And playing a race of "plants" that sustain themselves with photosynthesis sounds like a plan aswell, so breathing carbon dioxide is also an option.
And then chemosynthesis would be another possible, maybe on some planets theres atmospheres that support that kind of breathing to a degree that intelligent life can be sustained.
And a race that originates from oceans and thus needs water (which contains oxygen, most likely) is also far from impossible, dolphins are close to that already.

Btw, the cambrian explosion is of course possible due to the occurrence of oxygen, but maybe it's also because of a suspected higher amount of carbon dioxide, which is rather good for plants, and because it's quite likely two thirds of the planet were deep frozen just a few dozen million years before.

Which leads to the question if intelligent, oxygen based life can actually form in cold climates.... Maybe it's just because we incorporate a lot of water.

Just noted this is the suggestions thread, we should probably not discuss this here.
Over all, I think it's conversation, but quite not helping to steve. gogo, mass production bonus!^^

[The Shadow]

Just noted this is the suggestions thread, we should probably not discuss this here.

I replied to you in the Chat forum.

[Elouda]

Here's something that might be a reasonable addition at some stage; modular multi-mission ships. I noticed there was a suggestion mentioning modularity with regards to shipbuilding (ie, speeding up build rates by using several slipways on one ship), but what I mean with this is ability to design and swap out mission modules (along the lines of the USN's LCS concept, if anyone is familiar with it).

As to how this would be implemented, while I do not know how the game handles ship components at the moment, the basic idea would be to allow the player to design a 'Mission Module' section through the Design window, and then equipment modules for it some other way. These modules would just be normal components packaged togeather which could then be 'loaded' into a Mission Module, and would probably built using construction factories like components can be now.

Now, obviously flexibility comes at a price, and this should be in the form of extra space needed for the systems to interface. So for example, lets say I'm building a 6000ton cruiser and stick a '1000ton Mission Module' I've designed onto it. This module could then load a predesigned component 'package' up to say 700tons. This would allow me, for example, to swap out the Active Sensor and FCS depending on the missile loadout I want to assign.

These could be upgraded through research, and potential areas that might be improved are;
-Efficiency of the Mission modules (How many % of the module can be used for 'packages')
-Total fraction of a ship that can be made up of modules (Initially 20-25%? Could be almost the whole ship eventually, allow for extreme flexbility - this would be the total ALL the modules make up, if multiple modules are allowed, or else you could just restrict modules to one per ship)
-Time required to swap out modules (Should increase with module size, so a 500t sensor package swap will be much faster than a 2500ton weapons reconfiguration)
-Possibily internal armour on the module itself?

The advantages of sacrificing some tonnage for flexibility would include;
-Ability to design and repurpose ships to fill a variety of roles. This could go as far as for example having a 6000ton cruiser which mounts a 2500ton combine weapons/sensor package that allow it to switch between cruiser and escort cruiser roles (in this example, the magazine and engines would be part of the main hull, the module would feature your choice of FCS, Active Sensors and Launchers). This could also work for commercial and support ships - being able to swap out cargo hold modules for a troop transport module, though this would obviously take a lot longer than similar military swaps due to the size of components. Eventually this system could even let you swap out entire propulsion packages, allowing you to tailor your fleet to whatever role its playing at the moment (system defence? trade for more speed with less fuel and engineering spaces).
-Capability to extend the lifetime of early ships without refits, or in conjuction with them. Those 1500ton frigate that you built early on could have their 500ton mission module (able to hold say 250tons) refitted with a newer version able to hold 350tons. This coupled with the ability to swap in a 'modern' mission module means these ships would have longer lifetimes (if this is a good thing or not depends on personal preference!).
-One further possible use of this would be if a ship with such a system took damage to its 'mission package', but not the module itself. Such a ship could then simply swap out the damaged module for a new one while the old one if repaired. I dont know if thats within the scope of the game though, or if it would make thing too complicated.

Obviously there would have to be some logic to make sure this fits within the existing ship design paradigm, such as ensuring either the ship has enough crew to cover the modules needs, else prevent it from being loaded? Or require modules to have self contained crew quarters. Theres also potential for conflict between the Military/Commercial categories, but I suppose this would be solved by restricting Commerical modules to only loading Commerical packages. Mission module would probably only be able to take one package a piece, up to the maximum 'capacity' in size wise - so fitting an undersized module would be possible, though wasteful.

Hopefully that made some sense. I have no idea if it fits your vision for the game, but it was something that occurred to me as I was learning the game.

Elouda

[Father Tim]

Aurora already has a technology for building 'Modular Mission Ships' - it's called a tractor beam.

The downsides are that both the main ship and your 'module' must mount life support for their (separate) crews, and that only one one or the other can use its engines at a time - which is fine, because you're probably not going to put engines on your module.  And while portions of your 'modules' can be constructed by Industry, at the very least final assembly must take place in a shipyard tooled for the task.  But if you limit your modules to say, 1000 tons, it's not hard at all to maintain a shipyard for them.

Oh, okay, they show up as two separate contacts, they are targeted individually, their shields & armour don't combine, and they combat jump as two ships, but otherwise they're 'modular'.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That said, I do think that removing radiation should be a terraforming option.

Not allowing radiation removal through terraforming is a game design decision to prevent a Starfire game strategy that used to be called "Genocide For Fun and Profit (GFFP)". GFFP was all about exterminating alien races and taking over their planets. This was possible in Starfire because you could completely glass the planet from orbit and move in the next day with no ill effects. Aurora has environmental and collateral damage to make ground combat a realistic option. If you could wipe out a population from orbit and then remove the resulting radiation, it would significantly reduce the need for ground combat.

Steve

[waresky]

That said, I do think that removing radiation should be a terraforming option.

Not allowing radiation removal through terraforming is a game design decision to prevent a Starfire game strategy that used to be called "Genocide For Fun and Profit (GFFP)". GFFP was all about exterminating alien races and taking over their planets. This was possible in Starfire because you could completely glass the planet from orbit and move in the next day with no ill effects. Aurora has environmental and collateral damage to make ground combat a realistic option. If you could wipe out a population from orbit and then remove the resulting radiation, it would significantly reduce the need for ground combat.

Steve

Agree on Steve.Without if,without but.

[The Shadow]

Aurora already has a technology for building 'Modular Mission Ships' - it's called a tractor beam.

This game never ceases to amaze.  I expect we'll soon see a series of tractor-based modular ships in the forums...

Kudos, Steve.  You've made a game with endless possibilities!

[UnLimiTeD]

Uhm, Steve, may I add that those terraformers to reduce radiation could just as well be used to fill the atmosphere with sulfur instead, wiping the population in about the time it would cost you to remove the radiation again?
I mean, a reduction of radiation based on regular speeds, being 1-8 per month, or, let's say, 20-160 per yer, along with terraforming speed upgrades, sounds like it's not breaking anything.

Letting that rest for not being all that important, SM functions ftw,

How about a new level of tractor technology that pulls the module close enough to to combine the shields of tug and module?

Also, can a module actually have a tractor on it's own to tow another module?  
Otherwise, a dual tractor beam would be neat.

[Andrew]

Uhm, Steve, may I add that those terraformers to reduce radiation could just as well be used to fill the atmosphere with sulfur instead, wiping the population in about the time it would cost you to remove the radiation again?
I mean, a reduction of radiation based on regular speeds, being 1-8 per month, or, let's say, 20-160 per yer, along with terraforming speed upgrades, sounds like it's not breaking anything.

Letting that rest for not being all that important, SM functions ftw,

How about a new level of tractor technology that pulls the module close enough to to combine the shields of tug and module?

Also, can a module actually have a tractor on it's own to tow another module?  
Otherwise, a dual tractor beam would be neat.

Terraforming a world takes longer than nuking it (particularly as in the next version you will need more poisonous gas), and requires your terraformers to reach it. My terraformers are slow and undefended, I could build faster armoured ones but that would be expensive. There is a counter that the defenders can build terraforming installations , or just shoot missiles at your terraformers.
For example in my current game I managed to decoy the enemy fleet away from their homeworld briefly and got ships in close to it , I could have nuked the planet and wiped out the population but would not have had time to terraform the planet.

I did manage to wipe out the troops without irradiating the planet as the thin atmosphere allowed laser bombardment, this reduced in a lot of dust but did not produce any radiation .

[AndonSage]

This is a User Interface suggestion for the Create Research Project screen. As a beginner, knowing what technologies are required for a project is hard to remember. The only way I've found to know what technologies need to be researched is to actually call up the Create Research Project screen and look at the Background Technology section (or, outside the game, the Player Designed Systems at the AuroraWiki). What I would like to see is the associated category for each Background Technology, similar to the Scientist specialties (e.g. SF = Sensors and Fire Control). So instead of "Hardening" we would see "Hardening (SF)" and know to look in the Sensors and Fire Control category to improve the Electronic Hardening Level technology.

I would also like to see the current technology (with effects) listed in the Technology Description box (or in a separate box) when you click on a technology to research in the Research tab of the F2 screen. So for example, if I click on Construction Rate 14 BP, I'd see Construction Rate 12 BP as the current technology. Just makes it easier to know what increase you're getting for your research points.

Some of the Technology descriptions need a better description. For example, Shields just say "The level of shield technology. Higher level shields provide more protection for the same size shield generator. Shields regenerate over time." I'd like to know exactly what that protection is. Armour isn't any better.

Any chance of getting a tech flowchart? While it's easy to see that Armoured Fuel Bunker 1 -> Armoured Fuel Bunker 2, unless you know your Greek alphabet, Beta Shields -> Gamma Shields isn't as easy. This especially holds true for Armour. What comes after High Density Duranium Armor?

[Father Tim]

95% of the tech flowchart would be:
1 --> 2 --> 3 --> 4 --> 5 --> 6 --> 7 --> 8 --> 9 --> 10 --> etc.
Alpha --> Beta --> Gamma --> Delta --> Epsilon --> Zeta --> Theta --> Eta --> Iota --> Kappa --> Lambda --> Mu --> Nu --> Omicron --> Pi --> Psi --> etc.

The only systems that don't follow the pattern are armour, reactors/engines, and - I suppose - Laser wavelengths.  Wait, missile warheads don't follow the pattern either, but then they also tell you the strength per MS as part of the name.

If you want to build a tech tree, then go to the (F2) 'Population & Production' screen, the 'Research' tab, and click on the 'All Projects' radio button to get a list of all projects.  You can sort the columns by name or RP cost by clicking on the headers.


Oh, and I believe 'Composite Armour' is the next step up from High-Density Duranium.  It's easy enough to figure out - research HDDA then look for the only entry in the 'Available Research' with 'Armour' in it's name.  If you're really impatient, use SM Mode to instant research each level of armour and write it down, then delete the tech.