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 - Turmoil

Pages: [1] 2
Mechanics / Re: Question about Hulls
« on: April 22, 2015, 10:16:04 AM »
I figured similar to separating by game. Maybe having a list of Hulls available to the computer (to protect NPR and Star Swarm, etc.), and each game having its own list for the player. Maybe either have the player list blank or pre-built with some standard classes.

In terms of actually separating, maybe just add an extra column to the DB would be easiest. Honestly, you would be able to determine how your project works best, I am just adding my worthless 2 pennies.

The Air Force starts at Lt. but the USAF do not pilot carrier-based craft. Navy pilots handle those craft. I just finished my fighter structure, and set it up with 2-craft elements as the base and working up from there:

2 fighter Elements
2 elements -> Flight
3 flights -> Squadron
4 squadrons -> Group
2 groups -> Wing

A wing has 96 aircraft total. Sine there is no space to manage the command structure to this detail (fighter wings are effectively Task Groups in my hierarchy), the 'leader' will be a Lt. Commander and an element cannot have more than one Lt. (maybe I'll just make sure my fighter wings never have more than 50% Lt. ranks)

Mechanics / Re: Question about Hulls
« on: April 22, 2015, 09:54:12 AM »
I should do that. I just wonder how long it would take to get around to.

The Academy / A Sample Fleet Doctrine / Template
« on: April 21, 2015, 03:02:53 PM »
So I got tired of staring at database entries all day, and decided to let the automated script another user made do all the hard work. I moved on to building something else instead: a fleet doctrine template. I'm going to post it here for you all to look at and maybe it will help you understand naval structure and fleet design. It is still heavily a work in progress, with a lot of information missing pending more research. What is complete is the actual fleet structure: the fleets, task forces, and command structure. The ship class details and fighter squadron makeup is my main focus right now.

My basis for this is as follows:
Ranks and command structure - US Navy
Fleet command levels (fleet -> TF -> TG, etc.) - Star Trek
Hull Classifications - US Navy and US Navy (Historical)
Ship guidelines, fighter squadron makeup, etc. - Star Wars

The template is here (posting the full link since I don't know if my account can post links yet.):

I just started a new game using SM Mode (no Sol start) and it seems that when you create a new empire in the system information screen, it will let you create a race that breathes non-oxygen atmosphere. Mine is a methane race, I believe, but there were at least two others that I passed up on.

Mechanics / Question about Hulls
« on: April 20, 2015, 10:46:00 AM »
I don't know if anyone other than Steve knows the answer to this, but I have the database password for my tech tree investigation, and I was exploring the other DBs. I want to know some things about the Hull Classifications.

How do NPRs and the other races (Invaders, Swarm, and the other one) utilize them?
If I delete, for example, the 'Space Swarm' hull, will that damage a race that uses it?
What if I alter the DB and then start a new game, will that affect NPRs? Most notably here is the Star Swarm, I don't know how the comptur Swarm race handles their ships, if they use hardcoded hull designations or just pick specific ones.

I'm asking because I want to remove excess designations like the non-english ones and a few that I personally don't want to have in my list (I like keeping things clean).

Just to add to this, I like to format my navy into a realistic structure. I use American ranks and a mix of Starfleet (Star Trek) and real-world fleet structure, like so (from highest to lowest):

Admiralty - Fleet Admiral -- this is the entire navy, which isn't really depicted in game. The Fleet Admiral rank is also not present, the highest rank I use is the 3-star Admiral. If you want, consider yourself the fleet admiral (although in reality, you would be commander-in-chief and fleet admiral is two ranks below you.)

Named Fleet - Admiral -- this is a regional fleet (in US Navy that would be Pacific Command, Central Command, etc.) which doesn't have any ships on its own. In the game, this would be the Task Force screen, and I would designate them by Sectors (each sector has its own named fleet)

Numbered Fleet - Vice Admiral -- the first structure to have its own ships, but only flagships. each numbered fleet would have one flagship and associated vessels. In my game, the flagship would either be a carrier for deep-space fleets or designated flagships for assault or landing fleets (since carriers would be too big for near-planet missions)

Task Force - Rear Admiral -- an individual group for specific missions. I usually designate each ship type in its own task force (freighters in one, survey ships, landing / assault, carriers, auxiliary cargo, fighters, etc.) The Rear Admiral would be designated for the first ship in the TF. On the Organization screen, a TF would be where most ships end up

Task Group - no rank -- Task Groups are for individual missions. For fighters, these would be 'wings' but for survey ships, this would be skipped. It really depends on whether the mission requires one ship or several.

Unit - lower officers -- Individual ships. Not much explanation here.

The remaining officer ranks are:

Captain -- large vessels. Carriers, Battleships, some types of auxiliaries or command ships. Pretty much anything that is designed to be self-sustaining.

Commander -- small vessels. Cruisers and below (including frigates, escorts, patrol craft, etc.) which generally require tenders or support craft.

Lieutenant Commander / Lieutenant / Ensign -- In the US Navy, these ranks do not get their own commands. In Aurora, I use them to command fighters, commercial craft, or pretty much any non-combat related vessels.

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: April 15, 2015, 09:04:50 AM »
I was about to start up building these for the new version, but your script is much better. I think what I'll do is use your script to gather the data and just design mine using yours as the information source. But I have a few questions.

Which language did you build the script in, and could I get a copy of it (and the latest result from it). Also, would you mind if I linked your work on the first post for new users to see?

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: January 28, 2015, 09:01:03 AM »
I got caught up with uni and forgot about Aurora until recently. Since the game has gone through many changes, I'll have to start from scratch, but I need to spend some time playing and getting back into it again.

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: December 24, 2012, 02:36:59 PM »
Sorry about my long absence, I had lost interest in Aurora right after v6 came out, and I forgot about my project. I noticed we've had two new versions released since I was last here, so I'll start working on the v6.2 tech tree. I'll leave the previous works up on the first post until I can catch up with the new one.

Kind of ironic that the day most people are taking a break, I'm getting back to work  :-\ Oh well... I hope everyone has a pleasant (whatever you celebrate), and I will hopefully have some useful data up within the week, if I dont get sidetracked like I usually do (although now I don't have school as an excuse.)

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:13:21 AM »
Sorry for my absence, just bought a new laptop. I am so excited for v6, and am surprised we're already on the first patch! Now I need to know if everyone would like me to continue with the v5 tech tree or modify it for v6 now. I haven't even started playing yet, so I don't know how much it's changed. Really its up to you guys and Erik.

The Academy / Re: Help me fix my database
« on: October 06, 2012, 11:11:00 AM »
I second the notion on asking Steve (Walmsley) to create a fix. The main reason being that the database is so tightly interlinked, altering one entry in one sheet affects about 2/3rds of the other sheets. I'm working on a tech tree based off of the database and actually had to create multiple copies to experiment with to test all the relationships for technology.

However, if you know what you are doing, just do a web search. You'll find resources on getting database access pretty quickly. Just remember not to share any information about the database or its internals, that is classified ;)

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: October 06, 2012, 11:06:30 AM »
Thank Erik.  That will make it easier to organize.

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: October 02, 2012, 06:02:54 PM »
I wasn't aware there were techs like that.  The database has no special notes on those, so it would require checking in SM mode on the game.  I'll go through it on the second version.  Or someone who knows the system could put the notes down here.

Also, I'm not even sure if I will finish before 6. 0 comes out, so if Steve beats me to it, I'll just finish the first version and start over for 6.

The Academy / Re: A Conclusive Tech Tree (Ongoing)
« on: September 30, 2012, 06:52:02 PM »
This week I won't be doing any work.  I spent 20 hours this weekend alone on filming projects for school, and I have to spend this week editing the videos.  Next week I will start on the next tree.

@Zook: I'm confused.  What do you mean by "special techs"? In the research database, the only techs that need to be removed are "RD" which are the racial techs.  Maybe you or Steve can explain what you're trying to tell me.

@xeryon: There are branches, sort of.  Check the first tech tree (I think its the first).  A few techs don't get enabled until another line reaches a certain point.

@Dutchling: I can try, but I'm not sure if the lines will actually be able to change colors.  I remember trying something like that, and ended up changing half the tree! It's a delicate process :P I'm sure there is a way to do it with one of the hundreds of controls on the program, so when I do the next version of the trees, I'll play with the program.

Finally, my opinion on the tech tree redesign: I personally like the linear system.  For one, it makes designing a tree easier (example, the overlap between the Power System and Engine tech took me twice as long to do as the rest of that tree, because I had to constantly resize everything. ) and also because it makes tech easier to manage.  For example, if I wanted to improve my laser's speed, I don't want to waste time also increasing its power output.  That's obviously a terrible example for many reasons, but you get the idea: I would like to focus on one aspect of my technology without having to spend time on the others.

I hope the current techs are helping everyone visualize and better plan their conquests, I am going to play a little to relax for what's left of my weekend before I have to start the editing.  Enjoy your spoilers!

Pages: [1] 2