Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => VB6 Mechanics => Topic started by: sloanjh on December 09, 2012, 03:55:49 PM
-
Please put discussion of Steve's 6.30 posts here.
John
-
Since you are now tracking kills, can you use that to increase crew ratings on the ship that scores the kill too? At the moment, you only get crew grade if you take damage.
-
Bless Steve for adding the kill history tracking for captains and ships
-
Since you are now tracking kills, can you use that to increase crew ratings on the ship that scores the kill too? At the moment, you only get crew grade if you take damage.
Seconded.
Could you add the minimum contact range to missile fire controls as well?
-
Shortest route calculation? Hell yes! That is awesome.
-
Does the LaGrange Point auto-pathing come into effect with automatic survey orders?
-
When one ship destroys another, the kill is recorded in the ship history and in the history of the ship commander. Both ships and commanders will maintain running totals for the tonnage of military and comercial ships they have destroyed. The ship that made a kill is also included in the events log.
Steve
Game of the freakin' year. ;D
And yeah, like the others say if you can give a bonus to crew grade and commanders for kills/damage? that would be awesome. :)
-
Game of the freakin' year. ;D
And yeah, like the others say if you can give a bonus to crew grade and commanders for kills/damage? that would be awesome. :)
Realistic, in fact. 8)
-
Looking forward to when 6.3 gets realised in about august or september this year hope steve gives us some new notes soon
-
Less interrupts! Yay!
-
For resolution 1 sensors, I have added an extra item to the summary for the sensor. MCR shows the range at which this sensor will detect a contact of minimum size (Size 6 missile or less).
Missile Detection Sensor (1) GPS 189 Range 20. 8m km MCR 2. 3m km Resolution 1
Extremely handy addition. Thanks a lot, Steve. :)
Shock Damage
Ships may now suffer Shock Damage as a result of hostile weapon fire (either energy weapons or missile warheads). A percentile roll is made after any non-shield damage. If the roll is less than Damage^1. 3 (rounded down), there is the potential for shock damage. The damage inflicted is equal to: (Damage / 3) * Random Percentage. The result is rounded down to the nearest integer, so it may still result in zero damage
I thought about this a few days ago. I was watching Star Trek and kept seeing consoles explode and damage be inflicted in various systems. Imagine my surprise when I see the thread and this is added. Going to be simply awesome. Perhaps the Damage^1. 3 value could be reduced by 50% for enacting this system with shields. It would be kind of neat for large weapons to pound a shielded ship, and the shields literally fail rather than go down.
Order Templates
On the Task Group window, you can save a list of orders as a template and then retrieve them later.
I'm sure other people have requested this, but I was going to request this soon (it popped into my head after a grueling dual-race Sol start). The ability to save orders (Patrol routes, for instance) is VITAL for this game.
So this way I can say. . . "Go to Mars. Go To Venus. Go to Saturn. Refuel at Earth. Overhaul at Earth. " and just save that. That's exactly what this game needed. Thanks a TON. :D
-
Shock damage seems like a great idea. No longer will Armor almost always be better than shields. Would hate to lose my Bridge to a lucky shot though.
-
Shock damage should be interesting. I've been experimenting with torpedoes as size 24 fast close(r) range missiles, doing about 50 damage each. This should make them extremely damaging against unshielded targets, no matter how big they are.
-
Shock sounds like a big boost for particlebeams actually.
-
Sounds like a big boost for all large warhead delivery systems, and a decrease in the current superiority of smaller missiles.
Might also be more reason for shields. If the screens can mitigate shock damage, might make shields much more appealing, rather than just the economic value....
-
And against an opponent known to have stiff shields a preliminary wave or two of lighter missiles meant to bring those down before the heavy hitters arrive could also be an interesting tactic
-
At a glance, I'd say this sounds like a boost for shields (since they are immune to shock) and missiles (since heavy armor was an effective anti-missile tactic before), while of course being a nerf to heavy armor. Also, assuming I'm using this fancy calculator right it looks like a 35 point hit would be a 100% chance of shock. I wonder if we'll start seeing 35 damage torpedoes at medium-high tech levels; they'd be big and clumsy but even a single hit could potentially be crippling (0-11 internal damage).
I wonder if this will incentivize more varied fleets (large and small ships, combination of shields/armor/PD, etc).
-
Shield generators should suffer shock damage too when the shield is hit. Otherwise I fear it'll be all about shields in the future. There is a certain romanticism to the armoured cruiser, armour has a certain quality of its own.
I've never used such large missiles, what are your experiences? Does a large armoured torpedo come through?
-
It would also make close-combat with big missiles more useful, as they could be fired at ranges the OPFORs AMM-launchers couldn't get more than one salvo off.
-
Shield generators should suffer shock damage too when the shield is hit. Otherwise I fear it'll be all about shields in the future. There is a certain romanticism to the armoured cruiser, armour has a certain quality of its own.
I've never used such large missiles, what are your experiences? Does a large armoured torpedo come through?
Which is why shields should still suffer shock, just a much smaller chance or something.
Also, I'm not sure how this really "Fixes" AMMs. You'll still have excessive AMM wave sandblasting/accuracy/etc, they just won't be able to cause shock. I'm not entirely sure why I care about shock damage when I can toss ~400 missiles at something and then leave the area. With one ship.
Don't get me wrong, I love the implementation of it - I'm gonna have a lot of fun with my multi-start games (They get close and personal really quick :), I just don't see how this changes AMMs. If anything, it just makes ASMs better.
-
Shields already have the weakness of only having a quarter the hp of armor. I don't think this change alone will make shields dominant.
Though I could see more designs with armor and a light shield in the future; the armor gives the ship staying power in a fight, and a light shield stops one or two leakers from inflicting shock damage.
-
On Sandpapering
A counter measure system that can explode incoming missiles prior to actual ready (chaff),would be a nice option. The object here is the depth of the explosion is reduced by one. Meaning level 3 and below warheads would be useless, level 4-9 missiles become more like a level 3. Or something perhaps like Reactive Armour.
But I think Shock is still a good system that means sandpapering is not always the best tactic.
I believe if there is ever a successful tactic it should be countered by a successful defence in time, as military strategist and designers would think of a way, first came the club next came the shield. It been that way ever since the beginning of time.
-
Hmmm i think that is an big upgrade for Caronades and Particlebeams (high DMG energy weapons) while its just a minor for Lasers since they are anyway armor-piercing. It would also mean a little nerv for messons and Microwave since they do already internal damage. The P-beam in particular would get the boost to become a even better sniping weapon.
Only "balistic"-weapons seem somehow excluded. Gaus and Railguns do multiple shots and those arent strong enough to cause shock on a regular basis. To illustrate that lets take a look at railguns: 4 strength 4 shots will dish out the same damage as a Laser or P-beam. The chance to hit for the ballistic solution is bigger but each shot has only a 1.25% chance to cause shock while the Laser/P-beam has 28.4% !
-
Shields already have the weakness of only having a quarter the hp of armor. I don't think this change alone will make shields dominant.
You are ignoring the three biggest strength of shields however.
* Quick Regeneration
* Free Regeneration
* No penalty for adding lots of it
So shields tend to favor big ships a lot. When you put a few hundred hitpoints of shield strength onto a big ship you are free to ignore most incoming enemy fire.
In my current game my strength 500 shield flagship was regaining 6.25 every 5 sec which turns out to be 4500 over the course of a single hour, and the enemy was keeping the shields working for almost that long. Since I had a speed advantage I could also decide myself when to enter and exit their AAM range and effectively tank them in a situation that quickly would have sent any armored warship of same size home for repairs in best case and into oblivion in worst case.
Many of their long range salvos (70 sec reload in between) could be easily laughed off as the shield could regenerate close to 90 hitpoints until the next one hit.
When the dust settled my 5 smaller supporting ships relying on armor were lost, and the flagship had on it's own hunted down and destroyed 15 or so enemy missile ships half it's size.
I now have a deep respect for what you can accomplish with star-trek style ships in this games (relying heavily on beams and shields).
-
Alex's points make a pretty strong case for balance (and interestingness!) being served by adding some sort of mechanic for shields to eventually fail or degrade under constant attrition, as well as potentially causing catastrophic problems within the ship when they take a heavy-but-not-fully-depleting hit.
Shock damage might make a good model for this, but with only certain subsystems within a ship being susceptible (and with rather less frequency or intensity than actual impact-on-armor shock): Say, shield generators, reactors, and electronic systems - I'm envisioning wild power fluctuations from heavy shield depletion, with ensuing damage to any systems heavily invested in the ship's "grid" as the shield generators redline to keep a field in place.
Thinking about the same effect another way, it could instead make sense to embody such an effect as an acceleration of the maintenance clock proportional to damage absorbed by the shields, either applied just to the shield generator or similarly smeared out over the power subsystems like reactors etc. Stressing the power and shield-gen systems more in a few hours of sustained hits on the shields (or a handful of more solid blows) than weeks or months of normal wear and tear on those systems might lead to faster failures of those systems, and thus more need for backup systems, damage control and fast repair capability to maintain battleworthiness.
-
One interesting thing to look at in the shield vs armor balance debate is to find the answer to the question, how long do you need to fight for armor and shields to be of equal values (ignoring the fact that armor cost scales with ship size).
According to the wiki (which might not be updated) the break-even is 800 seconds of battle or around 13min, but I don't agree that this "almost never happens". Against NPRs there are often multiple fleets attacking my force spread apart with enough time for shields to fully regain strength.
This is somewhat an AI weakness (failure to coordinate attacks), but not a huge one since I often find myself in the same boat, coordinating all attacks to hit within a few min (the time it takes to regenerate shields) is no easy task even for a player.
Shields can also allow a whole new momentum/pressure in the assaults and save you from alot of micromanagement and fuel involved in sending back ships for repairs for every fight or few fights. To take advantage of that I either equip ships with beam weapons or make sure to bring lot's of spare missile ammo.
We can also make another comparison. Lets say that we instead of that 500 strength shield put 2000 armor on our ship (10 layers times 200 for example). That armor is only guaranteed to hold back 10 damage before our internal components can start taking damage (if we are really unlucky). With a shield I know for sure that the entire strength will be used for protection no matter where I am hit.
So the change that allows internal components to take additional damage from large hit's that don't penetrate armor might actually not be that much a change in armor vs shield balance. Armor will still just like before provide more overall protection per ton but rely on luck to do so.
For me the optimal defense will always be some armor and some shields, it's just a question of at what ratio?
-
I feel shields should still suffer some shock damage, even if it's just to shield modules.
I think the reason armor generally wins out over shields is that often ships face total destruction in a single wave and armor is just generally better for that. There's also the problem with shield spinup time and fuel consumption, especially in a multi-earth start or for jump point defense.
For me the optimal defense will always be some armor and some shields, it's just a question of at what ratio?
I feel if you're going to mount shields at all it should be on a large hull and with as much as you can plausibly fit. Armor should be purely secondary. The idea is to maximize per-tick regeneration to provide optimal capability to soak damage.
-
In general, I'm liking the addition of shock damage.
However, three things are worth pointing out.
1. It's going to make accepting a higher chance for an engine or reactor to explode even harder to justify. Boosting these components, because it also costs additional fuel, Gallicite, and ship build cost, ought to be a legitimate design tool. However, it's not hard to set up a chain-reaction, where the loss of a single 1 HS component may trigger the loss of the ship due to explosions causing explosions causing ...
There's a simple fix that keeps the exploding penalty serious, but prevents it from getting out of control. If damage occasioned by the explosion of any internal component were to not cause additional explosions, this would restore both balance and variety to this aspect of ship design.
2. Component Hit To Kill (HTK) per Hull Size (HS) varies greatly with component type. This is fine. What is already causing balance issues and will now cause bigger ones is that HTK/HS varies with the size of a component. Consider fuel storage, sensors, engines, and empty armored 1 HS missile magazines as examples.
I don't want to game ship design to improve ship durability. Let's even out HTK/HS as a function of component size, please. Let's also introduce fractional HTK. 0.5 HTK would mean that the component has a 50% chance of reducing remaining damage by one on destruction; 1.5 HTK would mean that the component reduces remaining damage by one, plus a 50% chance of another, on destruction.
3. Railguns are already somewhat inferior to lasers in beam combat (this statement does depend on how much we value the superior armor penetration power of lasers). They're currently a solid overall choice because of their superior ability to stop missiles targeting other ships, but a relative combat nerf to railguns would nevertheless be unhelpful.
-
With these changed, I think a change in the HTK is indeed in order.
Instead of making 5+ HTK size 1 magazines (maybe limit armor to size?) a requirement for a tough ship, maybe add "Structural support" as an internal component?
As for Shock damage, I could see a chance at electronic damage when the shields are sufficiently damaged and shock damage is rolled.
Finally it would make more sense to add shielding to components; The costs are way prohibitive.
The Engines are a valid point, too; Maybe allow to shut them off the prevent explosions? I always wanted the option to add an overclocked combat maneuvering drive to a fuel efficient ship. ;D
-
With these changed, I think a change in the HTK is indeed in order.
Instead of making 5+ HTK size 1 magazines (maybe limit armor to size?) a requirement for a tough ship, maybe add "Structural support" as an internal component?
As for Shock damage, I could see a chance at electronic damage when the shields are sufficiently damaged and shock damage is rolled.
Finally it would make more sense to add shielding to components; The costs are way prohibitive.
The Engines are a valid point, too; Maybe allow to shut them off the prevent explosions? I always wanted the option to add an overclocked combat maneuvering drive to a fuel efficient ship. ;D
Actually the entire internal Damage/Damage control system could use some improvements. Primary how the internal HTK works that I agree with you all.
But it would also be really cool to have things like internal fires, radiation leaks, fuel leaks, decompression able to spread throughout the ship and cause additional damage to nearby components and crew long after the initial hit if you don't have sufficient damage control or crew ready.
Like in the game FTL where the crew races around trying to contain the situation.
And who wouldn't love having to making hard calls like - DO we went decks 4 & 5 into space to put out the fire and save the ship or gamble that the 32 crewmen stuck inside can combat the raging fires without it reaching the reactor?
-
I am glad minority unrest is removed however I think the unrest needs an overall.
Population unhappiness should be checked against population security (aka ground forces) then should be logged if unrest is in place. It very tiresome view a lot of unrest issues the the log files, especially if you already have enough troops so it keeps it in check. Also I think unrest should grow fast, the small increments it grows at the moment give you not concerns to do much about it.
-
Love the new spinal mount weapons. Looking forward to seeing the other versions, it reminds me of old school High Guard and Leviathan. :)
-
What about railguns? Those poor, forgotten railguns.
Other than that, it mostly seems like a novelty. Lasers are mainly limited by fire control, at least at long ranges, and the benefit to really heavy lasers is to try to pierce your opponent's armor, which is hard to do at range. So as I see it the main benefit of spinal lasers would actually be at extremely close ranges where their armor penetration is worth the tradeoff of a lower fire rate.
-
I can't wait for all of these changes, the shock damage, spinal mounts, and the automatic lagrange point plotting.
-
Spinal mounts sound great. Now I can make whats effectively an armoured gun with engines. Looks good for making beam-armed siege/orbital bombardment ships.
-
Question on railguns - These were already spinal mounts, does that mean a turretable 'normal' version will come, or that they more come in three different fixed versions?
-
'Normal' doesn't mean turretable in and of itself. Think of it as just a fixed mount, just one that isn't large enough to require significant bracing. Assuming he follows the same pattern railguns, particle beams, and lasers will have a standard mount version, which is fixed in the hull but not large enough to require bracing, and then the spinal and advanced spinal mounts, which do.
Lasers are just special in that their standard mount version can be put onto turrets
-
I like the idea of spinal mount weapons. The problem is I don't see any use for them, at least if they are like in the example shown. In that example, the largest mount actually has lower dps than the smallest one (0.78 dps vs 0.8 dps) and is 50% larger. It allows powerful first punch, sure, but other than that, the smallest weapons offer the best offense over any longer period of time.
-
I like the idea of spinal mount weapons. The problem is I don't see any use for them, at least if they are like in the example shown. In that example, the largest mount actually has lower dps than the smallest one (0.78 dps vs 0.8 dps) and is 50% larger. It allows powerful first punch, sure, but other than that, the smallest weapons offer the best offense over any longer period of time.
The highest DPS comes when the power requirement is an exact multiple of the best recharge rate available. The biggest advantage of a heavier gun is better firepower at long range. Closer in, the edge shifts to smaller, faster-firing weapons.
-
I like the idea of spinal mount weapons. The problem is I don't see any use for them, at least if they are like in the example shown. In that example, the largest mount actually has lower dps than the smallest one (0.78 dps vs 0.8 dps) and is 50% larger. It allows powerful first punch, sure, but other than that, the smallest weapons offer the best offense over any longer period of time.
Also, with the addition of shock damage (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5728.msg61992.html#msg61992), harder punching weapons will now have an edge.
-
Spinal Lasers
You can now design Spinal Lasers, which are larger weapons than could normally be constructed using available technology. A ship can only mount one spinal weapon and they cannot be mounted in turrets.
A fifth category has been added to laser design, entitled Energy Weapon Mount. The possibilities are Standard Mount, Spinal Mount and Advanced Spinal Mount. The latter two cost 5,000 and 20,000 RP respectively. A spinal mount uses a focal size 25% larger than the maximum possible for a normal laser. The Advanced Spinal Mount uses a focal size 50% larger. Here are three examples using the same technology level but with different mounts. For the moment this is just for lasers but I intend to also add particle beam and railgun versions as well.
[/spoiler]
I squealed like a little girl. Literally, I went 'Squeeeeee.'
This is God-Given Gloriousness.
The only addition I could ask for is the ability to mount multiple spinal weapons on a ship.
I know a lot of you are probably thinking 'wut?' to this but hear me out :P
Given the size of ships involved a large-calibre spinal weapon is a given, but if you reduced that size you could pack in more of them.
Instead of having a large-calibre laser or particle lance or something (AKA Homeworld-esqe Ion frigates) you could for example have 2 or 4 particle lances on a spinal mount (with a reduced calibre compared to a single) for more continuous fire or rapid-fire ability. Personally I can't see the maximum amount of spinal lasers going above 8 without the reduced calibre becoming more of a hinderance than a help though, it'd be like sticking a few needle guns to the front of your ship.
Also there's mass and balancing to take into account.
Also as already stated, a fixed-facing weapon doesn't necessarily mean it's a spinal mounted one. You could have a fixed-facing broadside or chase armament, think victorian era frigates, cannon broadside, for example.
In contrast, a spinal mounted weapon can only ever be forward facing and more than likely the entire ship would be built around it. Also it should really be drawing power directly from the engines.
-
I wish he would send out a patch that just removes the minefields
-
Instead of having a large-calibre laser or particle lance or something (AKA Homeworld-esqe Ion frigates) you could for example have 2 or 4 particle lances on a spinal mount (with a reduced calibre compared to a single) for more continuous fire or rapid-fire ability.
I think that one single big gun is what this change is about. Having more of them would make ship overpowered.
Also it should really be drawing power directly from the engines.
Sure, engines doesn't need that energy.... :) If this weapon could charge from engine then why not normal versions too?
-
Also as already stated, a fixed-facing weapon doesn't necessarily mean it's a spinal mounted one.
I thought all non-turreted weapons were considered fixed? As they use the ships speed for targeting.
I think that one single big gun is what this change is about. Having more of them would make ship overpowered.
Sure, engines doesn't need that energy.... :) If this weapon could charge from engine then why not normal versions too?
I agree.
Actually shouldn't all systems need power from the reactors? Life Support, Command/Control, Magazines, Launchers, Sensors, Scanners?
It would be cool to see Power supply handled in a more generic way, but that is a future suggestion.
-
I thought all non-turreted weapons were considered fixed? As they use the ships speed for targeting.
I agree.
Actually shouldn't all systems need power from the reactors? Life Support, Command/Control, Magazines, Launchers, Sensors, Scanners?
It would be cool to see Power supply handled in a more generic way, but that is a future suggestion.
I think that non-turreted weapons are handled in that if the default tracking speed tech is higher than the ship's speed, they use that instead. So if your tracking speed tech is 5000, your FC is 10,000 and your speed is 1000, they track at 5000. I might be wrong, it's been a bit since I booted Aurora. But if I'm not remembering wrong, then it implies they might be pintle mounts.
-
Sure, engines doesn't need that energy.... :) If this weapon could charge from engine then why not normal versions too?
Not quite so.
recharging from engines mean:
1. the power requirements of a spinal gun is far too big for small generators to be effective.
2. spinal guns recharge rate is therefore limited by capacitor technology (with perhaps a multiplier to allow several capacitors to charge in parallel) and by total EPH. This means that if you put a big spinal gun on a ship with a low-powered engine - the recharge rate will drop. This, among other things, mean that orbital engineless guns are impossible.
3. while weapon is recharging ship will be slowed down considerably. EPH is at premium on military ships, so this requirement limits spinal guns usage to a long-range artillery and last-resort defence.
4. Spinal guns effectively use fuel as ammunition. Thim might not be a first concern of a fleet-builder, but certainly something to consider.
Therefore: normal guns are ammunition-less, more versatile in terms of ships that can mount them (low-powered patrols, stationary gun-bouys, fighters), do not slow-down the ship while recharging.
-
Please put discussion of Steve's 6.30 posts here.
John
TEN Years ive been "Follow" Steve's Dream...2003>>2013!!!! from early 1.0 to 6.3.
Waitn for :
TG icons on System Map (use real USA Navy icons)
Planetary map and Battle.
More easy and usefull Army system
Single ships with "Class" different map symbol, especially on System Map. DOT r very boring now..:)
Change from BLUE to DARK on System Map background. Blue r coming from old game.
Enjoy on Italy vacation, Steve:)
-
TEN Years ive been "Follow" Steve's Dream...2003>>2013!!!! from early 1.0 to 6.3.
Waitn for :
TG icons on System Map (use real USA Navy icons)
Planetary map and Battle.
More easy and usefull Army system
Single ships with "Class" different map symbol, especially on System Map. DOT r very boring now..:)
Change from BLUE to DARK on System Map background. Blue r coming from old game.
Enjoy on Italy vacation, Steve:)
I've not followed aurora that long, but individual TG icons would be nice, e.g an icon for carrier groups, an icon for fighter squadrons and missiles... hehe...
System map colour should be changable by the player though, frankly I like the blue background. Reminds me of fleet command.
-
I can't wait for 6.3 ... so many fun changes :)
-
TG icons on System Map (use real USA Navy icons)
I'd recommend against that. The icons in question are circles with either letters or very simple pictures in them. The appropriate document is MILSTD 2525. It's not much of an improvement, and they'd take up a lot more space on the screen.
-
Missile Engine Size Granularity
The size of missile engines is now in 0.01 MSP increments instead of 0.1 MSP.
And there was much rejoicing :)
John
-
Pluto's Moon real names? What about S/2004 N 1 ?
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/solar-system/2013/30/
-
I was just noticing Steve's latest post about v6. 30, with GUs having translated names. However, I noticed that he had it saying 5th Legion etrangere (with the correct accents, of course - US keyboard :P).
The problem is that it's not 5th in French. It's 5e or 1er. I'm sure there are similar changes in German and other languages.
I'm not sure how hard it would be to make that change, but I am certain that the native speakers of the various languages would appreciate the proper systems for their ordinal numbering systems.
For reference, you may want to check out this Wikipedia page:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Ordinal_indicator
I'm sure it's not complete, and may be inaccurate in some spots. The few languages I knew were correct (and even cited common errors). Native speakers would know more. :)
-
I was just noticing Steve's latest post about v6. 30, with GUs having translated names. However, I noticed that he had it saying 5th Legion etrangere (with the correct accents, of course - US keyboard :P).
The problem is that it's not 5th in French. It's 5e or 1er. I'm sure there are similar changes in German and other languages.
I'm not sure how hard it would be to make that change, but I am certain that the native speakers of the various languages would appreciate the proper systems for their ordinal numbering systems.
For reference, you may want to check out this Wikipedia page:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Ordinal_indicator
I'm sure it's not complete, and may be inaccurate in some spots. The few languages I knew were correct (and even cited common errors). Native speakers would know more. :)
Yes, I am aware of the differences for other languages. Once I start in that direction though, it is a very long road :). There are many languages and many places I could accomodate them. If I get an unexpected amount of free time I might start looking at making allowances for other languages but its not likely in the near future.
Steve
-
The addition of anomalies sounds interesting. What will we have to do to find out what type with which bonus we found? Is it given all initially by the geosurvey, or do we have to send a team to find out the details?
-
The addition of anomalies sounds interesting. What will we have to do to find out what type with which bonus we found? Is it given all initially by the geosurvey, or do we have to send a team to find out the details?
At the moment you find the anomaly via geosurvey and you learn the bonus when you create a colony. I might add a requirement for a xenology team but that isn't coded atm.
Steve
-
At the moment you find the anomaly via geosurvey and you learn the bonus when you create a colony. I might add a requirement for a xenology team but that isn't coded atm.
(I assume that) the good news is that you can find out the moment you click on the "Create (empty) Colony" button. So it's not resource intensive to find out (until you add the xeno team requirement).
John
-
(I assume that) the good news is that you can find out the moment you click on the "Create (empty) Colony" button. So it's not resource intensive to find out (until you add the xeno team requirement).
John
Yes, that's how it is working atm
Steve
-
An interesting way to create value for normally untenable worlds: suddenly it makes sense to plop millions of citizens and dozens of research centers on a horrifically unsuitable planet.
-
it certainly makes the game quicker and gives you an edge over the NPRs. You could hit endgame TL pretty quick with a fitting scientists.
-
it certainly makes the game quicker and gives you an edge over the NPRs. You could hit endgame TL pretty quick with a fitting scientists.
It's possible an NPR could start with an anomaly on their homeworld.
Steve
-
TEN Years ive been "Follow" Steve's Dream. . . 2003>>2013!!!! from early 1. 0 to 6. 3.
Waitn for :
TG icons on System Map (use real USA Navy icons)
Planetary map and Battle.
More easy and usefull Army system
Single ships with "Class" different map symbol, especially on System Map. DOT r very boring now. . :)
Change from BLUE to DARK on System Map background. Blue r coming from old game.
Enjoy on Italy vacation, Steve:)
Hm, quite a lot of time. I am waiting just 4 days (started playing 01 August). ::)
Planetary map and Battle.
So are there any land units battles in Aurora now? Is there any usage for all those battalions other than police forces?
-
I would like to see (as I have said before) a formation editor such as was present in Harpoon. Or even one that just allowed you to specify a formation which did not require breaking up the entire taskforce and giving all the individual elements various oddball follow and such commands.
Unfortunately this is likely a bit complex from the programing point of view.
I would also like to see the civillian decision process improved. Basically the use of flags could ensure that massive colonist drops didn't occur by first checking if space was available then going in order through the ships and assigning the job to a ship at a time with the amount of available space decreased by committed colonists between each ship check. This would stop when the "available space" went to zero. It is fairly straightforward subroutine logic I'd think and should be possible with only the addition of flags or else storage of a relatively small amount of information permanently.
I would also think that smaller firms would go after whatever profit they can, as at the moment I see goods that could be moved not being moved. But have them look at moving the several tons of this or that from x to y rather than waiting for it to be greater than 10.
oh blast this is in the wrong thread...ah well....it should be in suggestions or requests!
-
One easy change I'd like to see is being able to set the Colonist source/destination/stable radio button at ANY population level, not requiring 25m on the colony before it becomes useful. If I only want a 10k research population on a body, I should be able to do that without having to saturate my civs with contracts.
-
One easy change I'd like to see is being able to set the Colonist source/destination/stable radio button at ANY population level, not requiring 25m on the colony before it becomes useful. If I only want a 10k research population on a body, I should be able to do that without having to saturate my civs with contracts.
The reason for this is so you can't completely control the civilian sector. It is supposed to function with some free will, whereas if you could set every colony to stable and only one to colonise, you would have complete control over it.
Steve
-
The reason for this is so you can't completely control the civilian sector. It is supposed to function with some free will, whereas if you could set every colony to stable and only one to colonise, you would have complete control over it.
Steve
That's fair, I guess. It's only really bothering me because a) I'm running 5.6 still, which doesn't have the improvements in civ logic that makes them spread colonization efforts around some, so they focus on colonies in the order they were created and b) I have a colony on Mars that is supposed to be "evacuating" but if I leave the civilians to their own devices and turn off colonist transport to the moon, they will go full blast on Mars.
Perhaps it could still be locked when under 25m, but with the option for an SM-mode override? I've tried setting the value directly in the DB but the code must update it in the UI refresh/update since it gets switched back as soon as I try to view the tab.
-
It's possible an NPR could start with an anomaly on their homeworld.
Steve
Sure but wouldnt the NPR need a AI update to fully exploit that advantage? IIrc. the NPRs take potshots at research not going with theyr strengths or mitigating weaknesses. Also the NPR would have to choose to colonize a available Anomaly if one exists in its systems depending on pros and cons.
-
Hm, quite a lot of time. I am waiting just 4 days (started playing 01 August). ::)
Planetary map and Battle.
So are there any land units battles in Aurora now? Is there any usage for all those battalions other than police forces?
It depends how you choose to play the game. Quite a few people don't glass enemy planets, so then you need to conduct landings and conquer their worlds on the ground. However, it's also perfectly viable to slag most of the enemy army and then conquer their (somewhat) irradiated world with relative ease.
-
The reason for this is so you can't completely control the civilian sector. It is supposed to function with some free will, whereas if you could set every colony to stable and only one to colonise, you would have complete control over it.
Steve
Would you consider changing it to something like 50 mil / colony cost. So that say Mars & Luna could be stable at 25 mil. where as somewhere like Titan could be stable at about 7 mil. I'm sure places like Titan aren't the most attractive destination for immigrants & it would allow for smaller manned outposts as well as full blown colonies.
-
Would you consider changing it to something like 50 mil / colony cost. So that say Mars & Luna could be stable at 25 mil. where as somewhere like Titan could be stable at about 7 mil. I'm sure places like Titan aren't the most attractive destination for immigrants & it would allow for smaller manned outposts as well as full blown colonies.
Another problem I recently found was that if you modify colonists on Earth, you can't get them to relocate until they hit 25 Mil with civilian colony ships. Also there are circumstances where you might want to evacuate a colony, leaving no one behind.
Maybe allow setting stable/immigration/emmigration for each population and introduce a number of willing colonists to go for a certain planet, if you have no more, no colonization will happen, so you can't direct it by closing down all other colonies. The number should probably be depended on colony cost of origin/destination and total populations.
-
it certainly makes the game quicker and gives you an edge over the NPRs. You could hit endgame TL pretty quick with a fitting scientists.
Or it will end up the other way around...
To get the bonus you can't keep all labs easily protected in one place anymore but are forced to spread out your population and labs to a much larger degree, meaning they are alot more vulnerable to NPR attacks actually making the game more of a challenge.
-
Another problem I recently found was that if you modify colonists on Earth, you can't get them to relocate until they hit 25 Mil with civilian colony ships. Also there are circumstances where you might want to evacuate a colony, leaving no one behind.
Don't forget that you can use government-owned transports to move population around. So this option is available for evacuating colonies. (Plus, I think part of Steve's motivation here is that just because the government wants everyone to evacuate a colony doesn't mean they will....)
John
-
Has Steve said anything about game optimization? Will the upcoming patch finally make the game use more than one core?
The gradually increase of time it takes turns to flip has killed my motivation to play this game.
-
Has Steve said anything about game optimization? Will the upcoming patch finally make the game use more than one core?
The gradually increase of time it takes turns to flip has killed my motivation to play this game.
Since it is still in VB6, I seriously doubt it uses more than one core.
-
Since it is still in VB6, I seriously doubt it uses more than one core.
I think "will ever use one core" is a safe statement :)
It could conceivably happen in Aurora II, but that seems to have fallen victim to the innovator's dilemma (it's not cost-effective to do a complete rewrite compared to incremental improvements to the existing game).
John
-
Besides, I don't think Aurora is slow due to a CPU bottleneck. I think it's slow since it treats everything as a database and is constantly reading/writing. That's why I got a Solid State Drive :)
For a cheaper alternative, a RAMDisk might work.
-
There are some cpu bottlenecks like the sensor model(which can be turned off), but optimizing means doing a great deal of bug testing as well, the system as it is is stable if not particularly fast.
-
Besides, I don't think Aurora is slow due to a CPU bottleneck. I think it's slow since it treats everything as a database and is constantly reading/writing. That's why I got a Solid State Drive :)
For a cheaper alternative, a RAMDisk might work.
I did some experiments with a RAMDISK and it made zero difference.
-
Steve, would it be possible implement a simple, optional automation for medal reward, to be used in awarding "Long Service Award" type of medals.
-
Steve, would it be possible implement a simple, optional automation for medal reward, to be used in awarding "Long Service Award" type of medals.
Or an "Award medal to all officer in current fleet" option... I'm using a lot of ribbons awarded whenever an officer was part of a given military operation, but it's quite unwieldy (It requires to switch from fleet view to ship details to know the name of the officer, then switch to the officer rooster window to award the ribbon)
-
Coctyte, I have a relatively simple way of dealing with that. I use the titles system to designate what each officer is assigned to (and I don't use the automated assignment system). So, if I have someone commanding the CV Venerable, I put that as their title. If the ships are of a type that doesn't have a name (like a fighter), I will just put the type for the title, e.g. FTR. For staff officers, this might be COps SOLCOM - Chief of operations, Sol Command, or CiC SOLCOM - Commander in Chief, Sol Command.
This becomes less practical as you get more and more academies, since you get a larger influx of officers. But still, it's fairly useful for a very long time.
It also helps me keep track of what positions need to be filled. If an officer dies, I can see by their title what they were assigned to. Not every message reporting an officer leaving a position (dead, retired, etc) actually says what position they had.
Anyway, the end result is that since I have these titles, I can see who's in what ship without a lot of flipping back and forth. As such, I can award a medal to every member of a fleet because I can see all of that data.
Your suggestion, however, is sound. I am just giving you a potential temporary work around. :)
-
Hi, I have totally fell in love with aurora, despite I'm still a newbish..
What I would like to see implemented on, is:
1) the possibility for the alien to invade other body by using ground forces exactly like the human players have to do.
2) Some very very simple graphic symbols for ships, and missles at least. It would improve the attractiveness of the game enourmusly!
-
>> 1) the possibility for the alien to invade other body by using ground forces exactly like the human players have to do.
I think that would require a fairly substantial AI upgrade. Currently, the AI is a bit basic in all areas, and isn't terribly good at the kind of planning that would be required to use ground forces properly
>> 2) Some very very simple graphic symbols for ships, and missles at least. It would improve the attractiveness of the game enourmusly!
I suspect it might make things look a bit messy, quite quickly
A Harpoon-style formation editor would be extremely useful though, especially if it allowed the "zoned" deployments as Harpoon does. It might be a bit trickier to implement though, since Harpoon has the advantage of working with relatively stable techs, and simply has to specify an anti-air and ASW ring. The number of possible fleet compositions / strategies in Aurora far exceeds even the largest and most complex Harpoon scenarios
-
Military and commercial tonnage totals on the F6 display, truly awesome.