Author Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 31639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 320
  • Thanked: 20 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #690 on: July 06, 2017, 06:34:39 AM »
For repeated journeys through a line of JPs you can also use command templates and save the list of orders for later.
 

Offline superstrijder15

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #691 on: July 06, 2017, 06:42:27 AM »
Suggestion: Allow us to give priorities to each office in each Task Force

The reason I brind this up: I really need to have someone in each TF command, so as to be able to fill in the lower offices in that TF.   The game doesn't do this with the auto assignments.   The second priority for my officers should be warships, then other ships, then the other offices in a TF, beginning with the TF 'Fleet HQ', then 'Dummy' & 'Dummy #2'  The reason is that these TFs only exist to get R1 leaders a job, so they won't be fired and I can get more leaders for my fleet.   However, this would obviously also be useful once I get multiple real TFs and a lot of ships, I'd want to get the best people in TF A, and the slightly worse one in TF B.   For that, this suggestion would be really useful. 

8/7/17: Another suggestion: Increase the max range of escorts.  It doesn't seem like a hard thing to do, and it would allow one to sen out scouts with the escort command, while atm I have to manually pilot them due to my missiles outranging the max range of the escort function.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 12:02:54 PM by superstrijder15 »
 
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #692 on: July 06, 2017, 02:22:01 PM »
Suggestion:

Instead of setting HTK's for individual parts, let us draw the armor diagram manually, and allow us to have non-rectangular armor layouts.  This would let us replicate real designs more faithfully, because it would allow us to put essential components in heavily armored citadels, while the rest of the ship is more-lightly protected.

Our current system is good for dreadnought-era warships; they tended to have medium armor all over the ship.  WW2-era warships however tended to be mostly lightly armored, with a very-heavily armored citadel, in which the engine, magazines, and fuel bunkers were housed.  Your ship can survive a 14-inch shell penetrating and exploding inside a mess hall; it can't survive that same shell penetrating and exploding inside one of the magazines.  So by armoring only the parts that actually matter, you can save a lot of weight.
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #693 on: July 10, 2017, 04:34:28 PM »
Addition to my previous suggestion about armor:

Make the degree to which we can have a non-rectangular armor diagram a tech, in the same style as reduced-size launchers.  The higher the tech level, the less rectangular our armor diagram could be.

To measure how rectangular the diagram is, you can measure the slope of the diagram.  Higher tech will allow higher slope.

In the attached example diagram, green is non-essential components, orange is important components, red is most important components, and blue is armor.  The armor slope is 2.


Sorry, I can't get it to embed properly:
http://imgur.com/p5haknu
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #694 on: July 12, 2017, 06:55:05 PM »
Suggestion:

Allow sensors to provide some intel on enemy ships.

In real life cargo ships look nothing like warships usually.  And not just visually, but to all manner of sensors.  All ships produce their own unique sonar signatures, and accurate hydrophones manned by well-trained sonar operators can tell them apart.  Warships sound different than merchant ships.  Experts can even tell ships of the same class apart.  I spoke with one sonar-man who said that on a calm day, you could hear the internal PA system of nearby ships.

So my suggestion is to allow sensors to give us some information on what exactly a contact is.  Thermal sensors should be able to tell whether an engine is a military or a commercial engine, maybe even what tech-level (I assume each engine type produces a different kind of exhaust).  Active sensors should be able to see components that need to be at least partially external, like sensors, turrets, weapons, hangar bays, mining modules, sorium harvesters, construction modules, and cargo holds.  EM sensors should not just warn you when an enemy active sensor is on, but also when a fire control is locked on, like a radar warning receiver in real life.

Obviously this intel should not be guaranteed.  You should need strong sensors, possibly with additional tech.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lamandier, MagusXIX, superstrijder15

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 682
  • Thanked: 20 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #695 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: Lamandier, Barkhorn

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #696 on: July 17, 2017, 03:42:49 PM »
Suggestion:

Simplify shipyard expansion.  Merge all the orders like "Add 1000 tons to capacity" orders into one "Add X tons to capacity" with a field to input exactly how many tons we want to add.

Edited to add this addition:
Do the same thing for adding slipways; let us add more than one at once.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 04:37:42 PM by Barkhorn »
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, MagusXIX, serger, superstrijder15

Offline MagusXIX

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 161
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #697 on: July 17, 2017, 05:57:13 PM »
Suggestion:

Simplify shipyard expansion.  Merge all the orders like "Add 1000 tons to capacity" orders into one "Add X tons to capacity" with a field to input exactly how many tons we want to add.

Edited to add this addition:
Do the same thing for adding slipways; let us add more than one at once.

For those of us who like to keep our shipyard tonnage in nice, round numbers, this would be a godsend. I hate having to increment shipyards one step at a time. When I'm trying to get a civilian shipyard to 250,000t it really sucks to have to re-assign the 'Add 10,000 tons' order every other week. It'd be so much easier to just set it to grow until it reaches the size I want.
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #698 on: July 18, 2017, 04:14:26 PM »
Suggestion:

Add a maximum rank option on the DAC page of the ship design window.  I should be able to prevent rear admirals from being assigned to fighters.
 
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, serger, superstrijder15

Offline DIT_grue

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 131
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #699 on: July 19, 2017, 02:42:25 AM »
Suggestion:

Add a maximum rank option on the DAC page of the ship design window.  I should be able to prevent rear admirals from being assigned to fighters.
The maximum rank is two levels above the minimum. So if you set R1 for a fighter, no one will be assigned to a fighter unless they are R3 or below.

If it's not working that way, you've got a bug report rather than a suggestion.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #700 on: July 19, 2017, 11:36:57 AM »
I figured it out; the fighters were accidentally set to captain minimum.

But I think this is still a good suggestion; no reason for a hardcoded range of possible ranks.  Let the player decide it.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 290
  • Thanked: 33 times
    • View Profile
Re: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #701 on: July 19, 2017, 05:04:08 PM »
Suggestion:

On the task groups window, make the check boxes for filtering destinations remember which ones you have selected. 
Currently if you have "Show all pops" selected, and give an order that would require leaving the system, it clears all the check boxes when it loads the new system.
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51